House of Lords Reform Since 1997:
A Chronology (updated July 2009)
This House of Lords Library Note sets out in summary form the
principal developments in House of Lords reform since the 1997
General Election.
Chris Clarke and Matthew Purvis
31st July 2009
LLN 2009/007
House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and
their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the
Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.
Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services,
House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed to [email protected].
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1997 .................................................................................................................................. 2
1998 .................................................................................................................................. 2
1999 .................................................................................................................................. 3
2000 .................................................................................................................................. 4
2001 .................................................................................................................................. 5
2002 .................................................................................................................................. 6
2003 .................................................................................................................................. 8
2004 ................................................................................................................................ 17
2005 ................................................................................................................................ 22
2006 ................................................................................................................................ 27
2007 ................................................................................................................................ 44
2008 ................................................................................................................................ 64
2009 ................................................................................................................................ 72
Select Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 81
Introduction
This House of Lords Library Note sets out in summary form the principal developments in
House of Lords reform since the 1997 General Election. It updates a previous House of
Lords Library Note, House of Lords Reform Since 1997: A Chronology (LLN 2008/018).
It is primarily concerned with reform proposals in terms of the composition and powers of
the House of Lords. It does not focus in detail on measures taken to reform the office of
the Lord Chancellor and create the new Supreme Court to replace the Law Lords
operating as a committee of the House of Lords.
A number of Library Notes published by the House of Lords Library and Research
Papers and Standard Notes published by the House of Commons Library have explored
developments in House of Lords reform; these are all listed in the select bibliography at
the end of the Library Note. The purpose of this Library Note is to provide a succinct
account of the key events in a single document. Greater consideration is given to more
recent developments.
1
April 1997
The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all included statements
on House of Lords reform in their General Election manifestos.
The Labour Party manifesto for the 1st May 1997 General Election stated that:
The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not
dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary Peers to sit and
vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute. This will be the first stage in
a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and
representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain
unaltered.
The system of appointment of life Peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed.
Our objective will be to ensure that over time party appointees as life Peers more
accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election.
We are committed to maintaining an independent crossbench presence of life
Peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords.
A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wideranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for
reform.
(Labour Party, New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better, April 1997,
pp 32–33)
14th and 15th October 1998
The House of Lords conducted a two day debate on Lords reform (HL Hansard,
cols 921–1042 and 1052–1166). The Lord Privy Seal, Baroness Jay of Paddington,
moved a motion taking note of the Government’s proposals for reform of the House of
Lords, as set out in the Labour Party manifesto, and announced the Government’s
intention to establish a Royal Commission.
Baroness Jay stated:
The Government recognise that the broader constitutional settlement is both
relevant and complicated. It will take time to bed down and assess. For those
reasons we want to build on our manifesto proposal for a committee of both
Houses of Parliament to consider further reform. We intend to appoint, first, a
Royal Commission to undertake a wide-ranging review and to bring forward
recommendations for further legislation. When the Royal Commission is formally
established, we will set a time limit for it—a time limit for it to do its work and a
time limit for it to report back to the Government. The Royal Commission is not a
delaying tactic but it is right that there should be wider debate and further analysis
before the long term is settled. Our detailed proposals on the role and working
operations of the Royal Commission will be announced in the forthcoming White
Paper.
(HL Hansard, 14th October 1998, col 926)
2
24th November 1998
In the Queen’s Speech for the 1998–99 Session, it was announced that: “A Bill will be
introduced to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more
democratic and representative. My Government will publish a White Paper setting out
arrangements for a new system of appointments of life Peers and establish a Royal
Commission to review further changes and speedily to bring forward proposals for
reform.” (HL Hansard, col 4).
19th January 1999
The House of Lords Bill was introduced to the House of Commons (HC Hansard,
col 714). The Bill made provision for removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and
vote in the House of Lords.
20th January 1999
The Government published a White Paper, Modernising Parliament: Reforming the
House of Lords (Cm 4183). Statements were heard in the Commons and the Lords
announcing the publication of the White Paper, the setting up of an appointments
commission to recommend non-party political life Peers and the establishment of a Royal
Commission, with the following terms of reference:
Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as
the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the
present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved
institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the
European Union:
to consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second
chamber; and
to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of
composition required to constitute a second chamber fit for that role and for those
functions;
to report by 31 December 1999.
(HL Hansard, 20th January 1999, col 585)
11th November 1999
The House of Lords Act 1999 received Royal Assent. The Act removed the right of all
but 92 hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords.
3
17th November 1999
In the Queen’s Speech for the 1999–2000 Session, the Government announced that it
was “committed to further long-term reform of the House of Lords and will look forward to
the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords”
(HL Hansard, col 5).
20th January 2000
The Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, under the chairmanship of
Lord Wakeham, published its report, A House for the Future (Cm 4534), making 132
recommendations.
The Royal Commission’s report proposed that a reformed House of Lords would have
around 550 members, with 65, 87 or 195 elected members. It recommended the
creation of a statutory Appointments Commission to be responsible for all appointments
to the Second Chamber. It did not propose any radical change in the balance of power
between the two Houses of Parliament.
7th March 2000
The House of Lords debated the Royal Commission’s report (HL Hansard,
cols 910–1036).
Opening the debate, the Lord Privy Seal, Baroness Jay of Paddington, expressed the
Government’s broad acceptance of the report:
The Government accept the principles underlying the main elements of the Royal
Commission’s proposals on the future role and structure of this House, and will
act on them. That is, we agree that the Second Chamber should clearly be
subordinate, largely nominated but with a minority elected element and with a
particular responsibility to represent the regions. We agree that there should be a
statutory appointments commission…
A statutory appointments commission should form part of any permanent
arrangement. This proposal again builds on what we have already undertaken,
on a non-statutory basis, for the transitional House.
(HL Hansard, 7th March 2000, cols 912 and 915)
4th May 2000
The Prime Minister announced the membership of the interim non-statutory
Appointments Commission (HC Hansard, cols 181–182W).
The White Paper of January 1999, Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of
Lords (Cm 4183, pp 33–34), had envisaged the establishment of a non-statutory
Appointments Commission. The remit of the Appointments Commission was to
4
recommend people for appointment as non-party political life Peers and vet all
nominations for membership of the House to ensure the upholding of standards of
propriety.
19th June 2000
The House of Commons debated the Royal Commission’s report (HC Hansard,
cols 48–125). During the debate, the Government said that a Joint Committee of both
Houses would in due course be established to consider the implications of the Royal
Commission’s work (HC Hansard, col 55). This was in line with the 1997 Labour Party
manifesto which had proposed that a Joint Committee would be set up to undertake a
review of possible further change following the first stage of Lords reform (Labour Party
Manifesto, New Labour because Britain deserves better, pp 32–33).
6th March 2001
In answer to a written question, the Government stated that there was little prospect of a
Joint Committee being established in the present Parliament, citing the failure of crossparty discussions to reach agreement on membership and terms of reference
(HC Hansard, col 200W).
26th April 2001
The Queen confirmed her intention to create 15 new non party-political members of the
House of Lords on the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments
Commission (“people’s Peers”).
May 2001
The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all included statements
on House of Lords reform in their General Election manifestos (Ambitions for Britain,
p 35; Time for Common Sense, pp 45–46; Freedom, Justice, Honesty, p 14).
Labour won the June 2001 General Election with a manifesto commitment to complete
House of Lords reform:
We are committed to completing House of Lords reform, including removal of the
remaining hereditary Peers, to make it more representative and democratic, while
maintaining the House of Commons’ traditional primacy. We have given our
support to the report and conclusions of the Wakeham Commission, and will seek
to implement them in the most effective way possible. Labour supports
modernisation of the House of Lords’ procedures to improve its effectiveness.
We will put the independent Appointments Commission on a statutory footing.
(Labour Party, Ambitions for Britain, May 2001, p 35)
5
20th June 2001
In the Queen’s Speech for the 2001–02 Session, the Government announced that it
would introduce legislation, following consultation, “to implement the second phase of
House of Lords reform” (HL Hansard, col 6).
10th July 2001
The Lord Privy Seal, Lord Williams of Mostyn, elaborated on the consultative process
that the Government proposed:
The Government will publish their proposals before introducing a Bill. It will
therefore be open to anyone who wishes to comment on our proposals. We do
not intend to repeat the extensive public consultation exercise of the Royal
Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, but we shall of course
ensure that the political parties have a full opportunity to make their views known.
We do not see a role for a joint committee. As I told the House in the debate on
the Address, our proposals will be based on the recommendations of the Royal
Commission (21st June 2001, col 110). We will consider carefully all
representations made within this context, but we will not allow consultation to
become an excuse for excessive delay.
(HL Hansard, 10th July 2001, col 69WA)
7th November 2001
The Government published its White Paper, The House of Lords: Completing the Reform
(Cm 5291), seeking responses by 31st January 2002, with a view to introducing
legislation thereafter. Statements were made in both Houses (HC Hansard,
cols 239–255; HL Hansard, cols 205–224).
The White Paper’s proposals included: the removal of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers
left in the House after the first phase of reform; the creation of a statutory Appointments
Commission to nominate independent members; the size of the House to be capped,
after 10 years, at 600; 120 members to be elected to represent the nations and the
regions.
9th and 10th January 2002
Two days of debate on constitutional reform were held in the House of Lords and one
day in the House of Commons, with the White Paper’s proposals attracting little support
(HL Hansard, cols 561–682 and 692–824; HC Hansard, 10th January, cols 702–778).
6
14th January 2002
The Conservative Party unveiled reform proposals. These included the creation of a 300
member assembly, to be called the Senate, with 240 members elected by a first-pastthe-post system for 15-year terms (Conservative Party Press Notice, ‘Conservatives call
for new elected Senate’).
17th January 2002
The Liberal Democrats published reform proposals. Their plans ultimately envisaged a
Second Chamber of no more than 300 members with a minimum of 80 per cent of
members elected by proportional representation (Parliamentary Democracy for the 21st
Century: Liberal Democrat Response to the Lords Reform White Paper).
14th February 2002
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published a report on
House of Lords reform, The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform (HC 494,
2001–02).
The report recommended that the Second Chamber should be predominantly elected:
We therefore recommend that 60 per cent of its members should come by
election. Of the remainder, half (20 per cent of the total) should be nominated by
the political parties; and half (20 per cent of the total) should be independent,
non-aligned members; both categories should be appointed by the Appointments
Commission.
(The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, paragraph 96)
13th May 2002
The Government proposed that, having taken into account the debates in both Houses,
the responses to the White Paper and the Public Administration Select Committee report,
Parliament should establish a Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in order to try
and take matters forward and achieve a consensus (HC Hansard, cols 516–533;
HL Hansard, cols 12–23).
11th December 2002
The Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published its first report, House of Lords
Reform: First Report (HL 17, 2002–03).
The report set out “an inclusive range of seven options for the composition of a reformed
House of Lords” and stated that it did so “against a background of broad agreement on
the role, functions and powers of a reformed Second Chamber.” It saw “a continuation of
7
the present role of the House of Lords, and of the existing conventions governing its
relations with the House of Commons.” Once the views of both Houses were clear on
the issue of composition, the Joint Committee would “return to the detailed matter of how
these important conventions should be maintained in a new constitutional settlement
between the Houses” (House of Lords Reform: First Report, p 5).
21st and 22nd January 2003
The House of Lords and the House of Commons debated the first report of the Joint
Committee on House of Lords Reform in anticipation of forthcoming votes on the Joint
Committee’s seven options (HL Hansard, 21st January 2003, cols 575–688;
22nd January, cols 720–838; HC Hansard, 21st January, cols 187–272).
The debate in the House of Lords, which featured over 90 speakers, was dominated by
contributions arguing for a fully appointed House. Indeed, responding to the debate on
22nd January, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stated:
Plainly, the dominant view of this House expressed over the past two days is in
favour of an all-appointed House.
(HL Hansard, 22nd January 2003, col 831)
The Lord Chancellor also informed Peers of his own voting intentions:
I have not sought to conceal that I believe the true choice to be between an allappointed and an all-elected House. I personally on this free vote will be voting
alongside those who have declared that they will vote for all-appointed and
against every other option.
(HL Hansard, 22nd January 2003, col 835)
Closing the debate in the House of Commons on 21st January, the Parliamentary
Secretary, Privy Council Office, Ben Bradshaw, observed that:
In this debate, a large majority of Members have spoken in favour of a largely or
wholly elected upper House. In doing so, they have reflected opinion in the
country and the findings of the surveys that have been conducted previously by
Members of this House.
(HC Hansard, 21st January 2003, col 270)
29th January 2003
The Prime Minister argued against the creation of a hybrid House and expressed his
support for the House of Lords as a revising Chamber, not a rival Chamber.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Tony Blair stated:
Everyone agrees that the status quo should not remain. Everyone agrees that
the remaining hereditary Peers should go and, what is more, that the prime
ministerial patronage should also go. However, the issue then is whether we
8
want an elected—[Interruption.] I am asked for my views; I am giving them. Do
we want an elected House, or do we want an appointed House? I personally
think that a hybrid between the two is wrong and will not work.
I also think that the key question on election is whether we want a revising
Chamber or a rival Chamber. My view is that we want a revising Chamber, and I
also believe that we should never allow the argument to gain sway that,
somehow, the House of Commons is not a democratically elected body. I believe
that it is democratic. [Hon. Members: “A free vote?”] It is a free vote; people can
vote in whatever way they want, but I think that all Members, before they vote,
should recognise that we are trying to reach a constitutional settlement—not for
one Parliament, but for the long term. In my view, we should be cognisant not
just of our views as Members of Parliament, but of the need to make sure that we
do not have gridlock and that our constitution works effectively.
(HC Hansard, 29th January 2003, cols 877–878)
4th February 2003
The House of Commons and the House of Lords both voted on the seven options
proposed by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform in its first report
(HC Hansard, cols 152–243; HL Hansard, cols 115–138).
The House of Commons rejected all seven options for reform presented by the Joint
Committee, while the House of Lords voted by three to one for a fully appointed House.
The option which MPs defeated by the fewest number was for an 80 per cent elected
chamber.
MPs also voted on an amendment to the first option on a fully appointed House. This
amendment declined “to approve Option 1 as it does not accord with the principle of a
unicameral Parliament” (HC Hansard, col 166). MPs defeated three options without
recourse to a vote. The options and the voting figures in both Houses are set out below:
Option 1 Fully appointed
Option 2 Fully elected
Option 3 80 per cent appointed, 20 per cent elected
Option 4 80 per cent elected, 20 per cent appointed
Option 5 60 per cent appointed, 40 per cent elected
Option 6 60 per cent elected, 40 per cent appointed
Option 7 50 per cent appointed, 50 per cent elected
9
Amendment Option
1
Lords
For
Against
Commons
For
172
Against
390
Option
2
Option
3
Option
4
Option
5
Option
6
Option
7
335
110
106
329
39
375
93
338
60
358
91
317
84
322
245
323
272
289
281
284
253
316
Following the votes in the House of Commons, the Leader of the House of Commons,
Robin Cook, stated:
We should go home and sleep on this interesting position. That is the most
sensible thing that anyone can say in the circumstances. As the right hon.
Gentleman knows, the next stage in the process is for the Joint Committee to
consider the votes in both Houses. Heaven help the members of the Committee,
because they will need it.
(HC Hansard, 4th February 2003, col 243)
For an analysis of the votes in the House of Commons, please see ‘None of the above:
The UK House of Commons votes on reforming the House of Lords’, Iain McLean, Arthur
Spirling and Meg Russell, Political Quarterly, vol 74, no 3, July 2003, pp 298–310.
9th May 2003
The Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published its second report, House of
Lords Reform: Second Report (HL 97, 2002–03).
The Joint Committee’s report was seen as passing the initiative back to the Government
following the outcome of the votes in February. In a press release accompanying the
publication of the report, the Committee chair, Jack Cunningham, stated:
Despite the lack of a majority in the Commons for any one option, the Joint
Committee hopes that the momentum for reform can be regained. There are
widely differing views within the Committee as to the best composition for a
reformed Second Chamber, but one thing we all agree on is that things should
not be left as they are. In this report we seek a steer from the Government, and
then from the two Houses, so that we can be confident that further work
undertaken by the Committee will lead to action.
(Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, ‘Press Notice No. 6’, 9th May 2003)
In a statement coinciding with the publication of the report, nine members of the Joint
Committee, James Arbuthnot, Chris Bryant, Kenneth Clarke, Lord Goodhart, William
Hague, Lord Oakeshott, Joyce Quin, Lord Selborne and Paul Tyler, stated:
Since the House of Commons rejected the option of a fully appointed Second
Chamber by a large majority on 4th February it would be absurd and
unacceptable to introduce legislation which would have that effect. Simply
evicting the hereditary Peers, and placing the appointments process on a
10
statutory basis, would result in that soundly rejected option. Those who argue
that the Commons must remain predominant—including Ministers—should surely
respect the outcome of that vote by MPs.
In these circumstances we believe that the Joint Committee cannot continue to
meet without a fresh mandate based on an indication by Government of its
preferred route to achieve a ‘more representative and democratic’ House of
Lords, and a subsequent debate in Parliament.
(This statement was included in a Liberal Democrat press release, ‘Don’t Tinker
with the Lords’, 9th May 2003)
12th June 2003
The Government unveiled proposals for far reaching constitutional reforms, including the
creation of a Department for Constitutional Affairs, the abolition of the office of Lord
Chancellor and the creation of a new Supreme Court.
In a press release, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that:
As part of the continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public services,
the Prime Minister has today announced far-reaching reforms including the
creation of a new Department for Constitutional Affairs. This will incorporate most
of the responsibilities of the former Lord Chancellor’s Department, but with new
arrangements for judicial appointments and an end to the previous role of the
Lord Chancellor as a judge and Speaker of the House of Lords. Once the
reforms are in place, the post of Lord Chancellor will be abolished, putting the
relationship between executive, legislature and judiciary on a modern footing.
The first Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will be Lord Falconer. He will
operate as a conventional Cabinet Minister and head of department, and will be
located together with his permanent secretary and departmental officials in the
offices of the Lord Chancellor’s Department and not in the House of Lords.
The creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs builds on the major
constitutional reforms carried through by Lord Irvine in his six years as Lord
Chancellor. It is part of a substantial package of further reform measures
including:
•
Establishment of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, on a
statutory basis, to recommend candidates for appointment as judges. The
Government will publish a consultation paper before the summer recess
on the best way of establishing such a Commission.
•
Creation of a new Supreme Court to replace the existing system of Law
Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords. The new
Secretary of State will not be a member of the Supreme Court. The
Government will publish a consultation paper on proposals for a Supreme
Court before the summer recess.
•
Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords. The Leader of the
House of Lords will consult with the other parties, and the House as a
whole, on changes to Standing Orders enabling a new Speaker—who is
11
not a Minister—to be in place after the recess, subject to the wishes of the
House…
For the period of transition, Lord Falconer will exercise all the functions of Lord
Chancellor as necessary. However, Lord Falconer does not intend to sit as a
judge in the House of Lords before the new Supreme Court is established.
(‘Modernising Government—Lord Falconer appointed Secretary of State for
Constitutional Affairs’, 12th June 2003)
3rd July 2003
The House of Lords agreed to establish a Select Committee to consider the future
arrangements for the Speakership of the House in the light of the Government’s intention
to reform the office of Lord Chancellor (HL Hansard, cols 983–1002).
17th July 2003
The Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform published the Government’s response
to its second report, House of Lords Reform: Government Reply to the Committee’s
Second Report (HL 155, 2002–03).
The Government’s response included a commitment to consult in the autumn on
proposals for a revised Appointments Commission. It also reiterated the Government’s
policy, as set out in the November 2001 White Paper, that the remaining hereditary
Peers should be removed from the House of Lords. The Government’s response
concluded:
The Government is grateful to the Joint Committee for the work that they have
done, and their efforts to take forward the question of House of Lords reform. It
agrees with the Joint Committee that its work, and that of the Royal Commission
and the Government itself before it, have produced a considerable degree of
consensus on the roles, functions and powers of the House of Lords. They have
demonstrated, in contrast, that there is no consensus about the best composition
for the Second Chamber. For the time being, the Government will concentrate on
making the House of Lords work as effectively as possible in fulfilment of its
important role.
(House of Lords Reform: Government Reply to the Committee’s Second Report,
p 5)
18th September 2003
The Department for Constitutional Affairs published a consultation paper, Constitutional
Reform: next steps for the House of Lords (CP 14/03). Statements were made in the
House of Lords and the House of Commons (HL Hansard, cols 1057–1078;
HC Hansard, cols 1086–1104).
12
The consultation paper included proposals to remove the remaining hereditary Peers
and establish a statutory independent Appointments Commission. The consultation
paper’s executive summary set out the Government’s key proposals as follows:
The Government proposes to introduce a Bill when Parliamentary time allows to:
Hereditary Peers
•
Remove all hereditary Peers, including the Earl Marshal and the Lord
Great Chamberlain (paragraphs 24–28);
Appointments
•
Establish a statutory independent Appointments Commission accountable
to Parliament rather than to Ministers. The Commission would determine
numbers and timing of appointments, select independent members of the
House and oversee party nominations (paragraphs 29–60);
•
Ensure that the appointment of Commissioners is transparent, open, and
free from Prime Ministerial patronage (paragraphs 32–38);
•
Charge the Commission with ensuring that in selecting independent
members they should have regard to the make-up of society. The
Appointments Commission should encourage appointments and
nominations from under-represented groups (paragraphs 53–55);
•
Place an obligation on the Commission to ensure that the balance of party
members has regard to the outcome of the previous General Election
(paragraph 41);
•
Place an obligation on the Commission to ensure that the appointment of
non-party members of the House averages 20% of new appointments
over the course of each Parliament (paragraph 43);
•
Require that the Government of the day should not have an overall
majority in the House (paragraph 41);
Managing the size of the House
•
The paper raises the question of whether there should be formal caps on
the size of the House, but on balance recommends that this should be
limited to a requirement on the Commission to aim to ensure that the
House does not grow beyond its present size and reduces in numbers
over time to no more than 600 (paragraphs 44–52);
Disqualification
•
Bring provisions on the disqualification of members of the Lords on the
grounds of conviction for an offence into line with those of the Commons.
Disqualified Peers would lose the right to sit and vote, and would lose
their titles (paragraphs 61–66);
13
Joining the Lords
•
Enable the Prime Minister to make up to five direct Ministerial
appointments per Parliament to the Lords. The Appointments
Commission would check all appointments before they took their seats
(paragraphs 67–70);
Leaving the Lords
•
Give life Peers the option of renouncing their peerages and so enabling
them to vote in national elections (paragraph 71).
(Constitutional Reform: next steps for the House of Lords, September 2003,
pp 12–14)
Delivering the statement in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer,
explained the rationale underpinning the Government’s proposals:
It was never our intention that the remaining hereditary Peers should remain
Members of the House for ever. When this interim arrangement was reached, as
well as the immediate benefit of the agreement, we accepted the argument that
the presence of the remaining hereditary Peers would act as an incentive to
further reform. That has not happened. There is clearly no consensus in
Parliament on the way forward.
So the context for reform has clearly and significantly changed. The
circumstances which gave rise to the original arrangement over the remaining
hereditary Peers no longer apply. The solution which the remaining hereditary
Peers were here to help is no longer available.
So the Government must act, and act decisively, to bring about stability and
sustainability. It is for the Government to act but it is for Parliament to decide. It
will be for Parliament as a whole to decide on the removal of the right to sit and
vote of the remaining hereditary Peers.
(HL Hansard, 18th September 2003, col 1058)
In response, the Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, criticised the
Government’s proposals. Moreover, he told the House that:
If this Bill is ever presented to this House, the noble and learned Lord and his
colleagues can be assured that he can expect a major fight on his hands, and it
will not be confined to this Bill. This House values its independence, and in the
past four years it has found a voice that the country is increasingly willing to hear.
We on this side of the House will not give that up lightly.
(HL Hansard, 18th September 2003, col 1062)
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Constitutional Affairs, Lord Goodhart, said that,
“the overwhelming reaction I have is a feeling of contempt and betrayal.” He stated that:
The Government have now made it clear that they want no democratic reform at
all. They have betrayed the trust of those who believed that they were truly
committed to full constitutional reform. They have done so because your
Lordships’ House is a nuisance to them. We amend their Bills and we take up
14
their time in debates. A proper reform would make things even worse for the
Government, so they take the easy way out. Your Lordships’ House will remain
wholly appointed.
It is, and remains, the aim of my party to end the hereditary basis of membership
But the remaining hereditary Members should go when, and only when, they can
be replaced by a mainly elected membership
(HL Hansard, 18th September 2003, col 1063)
Lord Craig of Radley, the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, stated:
I was under the impression that there were to be no further changes in the makeup of the House until stage two was reached. We have not reached it.
(HL Hansard, 18th September 2003, col 1065)
Responding to the statement in the House of Commons, the former Leader of the House
of Commons, Robin Cook, wondered why the Government was proceeding with a
proposal for a fully appointed Upper House, when such an option had attracted the least
support from MPs in the votes of February 2003:
Is not it the case that the all-appointed option received the fewest votes in the
House and had the biggest majority against it? I confess that I am rather
confused, so can my hon. Friend remind me why we consulted the House of
Commons if we intended to go ahead with the measure that was least popular
among Members of Parliament?
(HC Hansard, 18th September 2003, col 1093)
18th November 2003
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Speakership of the House published its
report, The Speakership of the House of Lords (HL 199, 2002–03).
A press release accompanying the report’s publication set out the main
recommendations as follows:
•
The Speaker of the House should be elected from among the existing
members of the House of Lords for a period of five years (with the
possibility of renewal) and be known as Lord Speaker.
•
The member elected as Lord Speaker should give up party politics for life.
•
The Speaker should be the guardian of the self-regulating ethos of the
House of Lords and uphold the rules of the House of Lords as set out in
the Companion to the Standing Orders, (see paragraphs 15 & 16) taking
on some of the Lord Chancellor’s current responsibilities and some of the
current Leader’s responsibilities.
(House of Lords Select Committee on the Speakership of the House, ‘What is the
future of the Speakership of the House of Lords?’, 18th November 2003)
15
26th November 2003
In the Queen’s Speech, the Government announced that it would take forward its
programme of constitutional reform and introduce legislation to reform the House of
Lords:
My Government will continue their programme of constitutional reform by
establishing a Supreme Court, reforming the judicial appointments system and
providing for the abolition of the current office of Lord Chancellor.
Legislation will be brought forward to reform the House of Lords. This will remove
hereditary Peers and establish an independent Appointments Commission to
select non-party Members of the Upper House.
(HL Hansard, 26th November 2003, col 3)
In the debate that followed on the humble Address, the Shadow Leader of the House of
Lords, Lord Strathclyde, deplored the Government’s proposals:
This time next year, breaking an undertaking binding in honour on the Prime
Minister and Privy Counsellors involved, given at the Dispatch Box, the House will
have been purged of one fifth of all the Peers who do not support the
Government, without any long-term reform plan being tabled. The office of Lord
Chancellor will have been scrapped. The House will have lost one of its Cabinet
members. The noble and learned Lords may be on their way out and a new
Supreme Court may be being built—who knows where and at what cost—to solve
a problem that few entirely understand. The policy was sprung on the world with
no consultation before launch and not the slightest attempt at building consensus
since. It does not make for a stable constitution or, indeed, a quiet life.
(HL Hansard, 26th November 2003, col 12)
The Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Baroness Williams of Crosby, stated:
… as regards Lords reform, I want to say simply that, having listened to many
speeches on the issue of the right of a non-elected House to challenge the other
place, Members on these and many other Benches in this House declare that it is
not our wish to be a non-elected House. It is, above all, the wish of the Prime
Minister. We wish that that were not so.
(HL Hansard, 26th November 2003, col 18)
In response, the Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Amos, stated:
The Government remain committed to reform of your Lordships’ House. In the
absence of any agreement between the two Houses, the Government published
a White Paper on House of Lords reform. The consultation period ends in
December, and in the new year the Government will bring forward a Bill that
represents the next steps in Lords reform. That Bill will fulfil the Labour Party
manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary Peers in this House.
It will also establish an independent appointments commission, accountable to
Parliament rather than to Ministers.
16
Each and every one of us has a strong view on House of Lords reform, and I am
sure that our debates on that Bill will be extensive and interesting. I am sure that
the House will conduct itself in its usual sensible and dignified way in relation to
the Bill and the rest of the Government’s legislative programme this Session.
(HL Hansard, 26th November 2003, col 20)
2nd December 2003
On the fourth day of debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords, the
Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to the motion for an
humble Address critical of the Government’s proposals for constitutional reform. The
Conservatives’ amendment was carried by 188 votes to 108 (HL Hansard,
cols 295–296).
12th January 2004
The House of Lords debated the report of the Select Committee on the Speakership of
the House (HL Hansard, cols 377–456).
24th February 2004
The Constitutional Reform Bill was introduced in the House of Lords (HL Hansard,
col 120).
The Bill’s Explanatory Notes provided the following summary of the Bill’s provisions:
The Constitutional Reform Bill will abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor and
make changes to the way in which the functions vested in that office are handled.
This Bill will also create the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, create the
Judicial Appointments Commission and remove the right of the Lord President of
the Council to sit judicially…
The Bill is divided into 5 parts:
Part 1: Arrangements to replace office of Lord Chancellor
•
Part 1: Makes provision for replacing the office of Lord Chancellor and
abolishing that office. There are provisions in relation to the judiciary and
the courts, the Great Seal, and the Speakership of the House of Lords.
This Part also provides a guarantee of continued judicial independence.
Part 2: The Supreme Court
•
Part 2: Makes provisions for a Supreme Court to replace the existing
system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of Lords. It
provides for the appointment of judges, the Court’s jurisdiction, its
procedures, resources, including accommodation, and other matters.
17
Part 3: Judicial appointments and discipline
•
Part 3: Makes provision for a Judicial Appointments Commission to be
responsible for recruiting and selecting judges. It provides for it to report
to the Minister on who has been selected, and for the Minister to make the
appointment or the recommendation to The Queen. It also makes
provision for a Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, who will
investigate any complaints, and for disciplinary procedures in relation to
the judiciary.
Part 4: Other provisions in relation to the judiciary
•
Part 4: Makes provisions regarding Parliamentary disqualification and the
judicial functions of the Lord President of the Council.
Part 5: General
•
Part 5: provides for interpretation, minor and consequential amendments,
repeals and revocations, supplementary provisions, extent,
commencement and the title of the Act.
(HL Bill 30-EN, paragraphs 3 and 6)
8th March 2004
The Constitutional Reform Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Lords. At
the end of the Second Reading, Lord Lloyd of Berwick moved an amendment to the
motion committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. Lord Lloyd’s
amendment, which called for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee, was
accepted by 216 votes to 183 (HL Hansard, cols 979–1006 and 1023–1112).
19th March 2004
The BBC reported that plans to introduce a Bill to reform the House of Lords had been
dropped (BBC News, ‘Blair puts Lords reform on hold’).
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer, told BBC Radio 4’s
Today programme that:
It became absolutely clear the Bill wouldn’t get through the Lords. The Lords
have indicated clearly they are going to resist. The leader of the Conservative
Party said he would fight every part of our legislative programme…
We have got to focus on the things that really matter when there is no more than
about two years to go before an election, at the latest. The critical thing is to
focus on what our priorities are.
(BBC News, ‘Blair puts Lords reform on hold’, 19th March 2004)
18
21st March 2004
The Leader of the House of Commons, Peter Hain, stated that the Government was now
“focussing not just on the composition of the Second Chamber but on its powers and its
procedures”. He argued that:
…the Lords performs a very important function, revising and scrutinising
Commons-inspired legislation—it’s absolutely vital, often the Lords has improved
legislation and that’s its function. What it shouldn’t do is actually block Commons
legislation—improve it yes, but not frustrate the, the will of the House of
Commons.
Now that’s what it’s been doing. So I think we need to bring down the period that
it can frustrate the will of the Commons, from a year to under a year, and we
need to get procedures in place that allow legislation to go through, instead of just
talking things out in an anarchic way.
(From transcript of Peter Hain being interviewed on BBC Breakfast with Frost,
21st March 2004)
22nd March 2004
The Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill was established, with an
instruction to report on the Bill to the House not later than 24th June 2004. Provision
was also made for the Bill to be carried over into the next Session of Parliament
(HL Hansard, cols 468–472).
22nd April 2004
The Department for Constitutional Affairs published a document setting out a statistical
analysis of the responses to the September 2003 consultation paper, Constitutional
reform: next steps for the House of Lords – Summary of responses to consultation
(CPR 14/03).
In the foreword, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor,
Lord Falconer, confirmed that the Government did not intend at this stage to pursue the
legislative proposals set out in the September 2003 consultation paper:
In September of last year I published the consultation paper Constitutional
reform: next steps for the House of Lords. This paper set out the Government’s
proposals for taking forward the next incremental stage of reform to the Second
Chamber. The consultation paper proposed to remove the remaining hereditary
Peers, establish a new independent statutory Appointments Commission, and
bring the provisions on disqualification into line with those of the Commons. In
the face of determined refusal by the opposition to support these reasonable
reforms, the Government has subsequently decided not to pursue this legislation
at this stage.
19
Instead, the Government intends to reflect on the possible options for longer-term
reform of the House of Lords, and to encourage wide-ranging debate on the best
way forward.
(Constitutional reform: next steps for the House of Lords – Summary of
responses to consultation, 22nd April 2004, p 1)
1st May 2004
Forty six new life peerages were announced. The nominations were: Labour 23,
Conservative 5, Liberal Democrat 8, Ulster Unionist 1, House of Lords Appointments
Commission 7, Prime Minister’s appointments 2.
25th May 2004
The Government reiterated its commitment to reforming the House of Lords. Speaking in
the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs, Christopher Leslie, stated:
The Government remain committed to reforming the Second Chamber, but to
proceed in the present climate of determined opposition in the Lords would crowd
out the current legislative programme. Nevertheless, the Government will return
to the issue in our manifesto, and I hope that we will gain a consensus on reforms
that would maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons and ensure a
proper revising role for the Second Chamber…
Most hon. Members would agree with the notion that the House of Commons
should be supreme in the final decision-making process and, therefore, that the
powers of the House of Lords should follow that overriding principle. The Lords
has a revising function, but any change to increase the legitimacy of the Second
Chamber would need to maintain the balance that we already have…
My hon. Friend clearly believes that the House of Commons should be supreme,
as do I. It is important that the Second Chamber can exercise revising functions,
including asking the Commons to reconsider. However, that has to be a
reasonable power, exercised in a reasonable manner.
(HC Hansard, 25th May 2004, col 1432)
2nd July 2004
The Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill published its report,
Constitutional Reform Bill [HL] (HL 125, 2003–04).
Views in the committee were divided on two key aspects of the reform package –
abolition of the office of the Lord Chancellor and the creation of a new Supreme Court to
replace the existing system of Law Lords operating as a committee of the House of
Lords. The Constitutional Reform Bill, as amended by the Select Committee (over 400
20
amendments were made), was re-printed and subsequently resumed its legislative
passage.
20th July 2004
A working group of Labour Peers, chaired by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, published a
report on the role and powers of the House of Lords, Reform of the Powers, Procedures
and Conventions of the House of Lords.
Among the report’s main conclusions were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Second Chamber should complement the work of the elected House of
Commons and concentrate on the scrutiny and revision of legislation.
There should be major reform of the legislative process in the Lords to
replace much of the current repetition and enable a better focus on the
main issues within a bill.
A new Parliament Act should be enacted.
The House of Lords should continue to be able to exercise a delaying
power on primary legislation.
A reasonable time limit should be set for all bills to complete their passage
in the Lords.
Bills starting in the Lords should be subject to the new Parliament Act.
Reconciliation machinery should be established to help resolve
differences between the Commons and the Lords.
Key conventions – principally the Salisbury Doctrine – should be codified.
Secondary legislation should be subject to Lords delaying power as
recommended by the Royal Commission on Lords Reform and the
Government White Paper on the Lords (2001).
Post-legislative review of the effects of Acts of Parliament should be
undertaken.
A Speaker should be elected by the House.
(Reform of the Powers, Procedures and Conventions of the House of Lords,
pp 2–3)
29th September 2004
In a speech to the Labour Party Conference, the Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, set out the Government’s thinking on reform
ahead of the preparation of its manifesto.
Lord Falconer told delegates:
In our parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons has primacy. But as
part of the correct system of checks and balances in Parliament, the Second
Chamber should have the power to delay. We don’t want to curb the ability of the
Second Chamber to delay. The Second Chamber should have the powers to
revise, to amend, to scrutinise. But not finally to frustrate the programme of a
legitimately-elected government. That’s not the Lords’ job. And under our
reforms, it won’t be. And we need as well to address composition.
21
Conference, this Labour government is committed to ending the hereditary
principle in Parliament. And the hereditary practice. We have removed most of
the hereditary Peers from the House of Lords. And conference – we will remove
the rest. But we need to do more. The Second Chamber should become much
more representative of the people it serves. It must allow the voice of the whole
of our nation to be heard. Not just Lords from London and the south east, as it
very heavily is now. But from all parts and all regions of our country. The
Second Chamber must connect properly with the priorities of all of the people.
There is a place for independent voices in the Second Chamber. But that
chamber must, predominantly, represent the people. Conference, we have
argued about all this for too long. There are too many reasons why every
proposed solution fails. We need between now and the preparation of our
manifesto to identify a solution which makes for a representative chamber, and
then commit ourselves to it, in the manifesto…
And if we are returned to office in the next General Election we will move as
quickly as we can to reform the House of Lords. Once and for all. Early in a third
term.
(‘Opening up our institutions for the future’, speech by Lord Falconer to the
Labour Party Conference, 29th September 2004)
25th January 2005
The Prime Minister delivered a written statement to the House of Commons in which he
set a limit on his power to nominate Peers directly:
The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for recommending
non-party-political appointments to the House of Lords. However, I continue to
nominate direct to Her Majesty the Queen a limited number of distinguished
public servants on retirement. I have decided that the number of appointments
covered under this arrangement will not exceed ten in any one Parliament.
(HC Hansard, 25th January 2005, col 10WS)
26th January 2005
Speaking in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister reiterated his reservations about
creating a hybrid House of Lords:
It is important that we have the debate about the future composition of the House
of Lords. My own position is that I think it is very difficult to have a hybrid partelected, part-appointed House of Lords. That is why I do not favour it, but the
debate will continue and I have made it clear that it should be a free-vote issue.
(HC Hansard, 26th January 2005, col 301)
22
26th January 2005
The House of Lords debated the report of the Labour Peers’ working group, Reform of
the Powers, Procedures and Conventions of the House of Lords (HL Hansard,
cols 1330–84).
21st February 2005
A cross-party group of MPs put forward proposals for reform of the House of Lords, with
the aim of re-invigorating the reform process and developing a consensus.
Paul Tyler, Kenneth Clarke, Robin Cook, Tony Wright and Sir George Young published
Reforming the House of Lords: Breaking the Deadlock, in which they set out the case for
a majority of members to be elected. Attached to the report was a draft Bill which would
achieve this aim. The cross-party group proposed that the chamber should have up to
385 members in total, 270 of whom should be elected and 87 of whom should be
appointed by an independent commission. In addition, the Bishops would hold 16 seats
and there would be up to 12 places for prime ministerial appointees. Thus, elected
members would constitute 70–72 per cent of the total, and independently appointed
members roughly 23 per cent. A debate in Westminster Hall on 23rd February focused
to a great extent on the group’s proposals (HC Hansard, cols 71–95WH).
24th March 2005
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 received Royal Assent.
The Act’s Long Title summarises its provisions as follows:
An Act to make provision for modifying the office of Lord Chancellor, and to make
provision relating to the functions of that office; to establish a Supreme Court of
the United Kingdom, and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords; to make provision about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council and the judicial functions of the President of the Council; to make
other provision about the judiciary, their appointment and discipline; and for
connected purposes.
April 2005
The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all included statements
on House of Lords reform in their General Election manifestos.
The Labour Party manifesto pledged:
In our next term we will complete the reform of the House of Lords so that it is a
modern and effective revising Chamber…
In our first term, we ended the absurdity of a House of Lords dominated by
hereditary Peers. Labour believes that a reformed Upper Chamber must be
23
effective, legitimate and more representative without challenging the primacy of
the House of Commons.
Following a review conducted by a committee of both Houses, we will seek
agreement on codifying the key conventions of the Lords, and developing
alternative forms of scrutiny that complement rather than replicate those of the
Commons; the review should also explore how the upper chamber might offer a
better route for public engagement in scrutiny and policy-making. We will
legislate to place reasonable limits on the time bills spend in the Second
Chamber – no longer than 60 sitting days for most bills.
As part of the process of modernisation, we will remove the remaining hereditary
Peers and allow a free vote on the composition of the House.
(Labour Party, Britain forward not back, pp 103 and 110)
The Conservative Party’s manifesto stated:
We will seek cross-party consensus for a substantially elected House of Lords.
(Conservative Party, It’s time for action, p 21)
The Liberal Democrat manifesto asserted:
Reform of the House of Lords has been botched by Labour, leaving it unelected
and even more in the patronage of the Prime Minister. We will replace it with a
predominantly elected Second Chamber.
(Liberal Democrats, The real alternative, p 18)
13th May 2005
Following the General Election, twenty seven new life peerages were announced for
former MPs.
The nominations were: Labour 16, Conservative 6, Liberal Democrat 5. This made
Labour the largest party in the House of Lords.
17th May 2005
In the Queen’s Speech for the 2005–06 Session, the Government announced that it
would “bring forward proposals to continue the reform of the House of Lords”
(HL Hansard, col 7).
In the debate that followed on the humble Address, the Lord President of the Council,
Baroness Amos, updated Peers on the issue of the speakership:
This Session the House also has unfinished business concerning the speakership
of this House. Noble Lords will recall the history of this issue. It was put on hold
while the Constitutional Reform Bill went through Parliament. That Bill finally
received Royal Assent just before Easter. It remains the Government’s view that
24
the Speaker of this House should not be appointed by the Prime Minister. We
believe that the House will be stronger if it seizes the opportunity to take the
Speakership into its own hands. This House needs a presiding officer of its own,
and I will resume discussions with the usual channels to explore the scope for
consensus. I will then bring the issue before the House.
(HL Hansard, 17th May 2005, col 23)
23rd May 2005
On the fourth day of debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords, Peers
considered the prospects for Lords reform (HL Hansard, cols 239–344).
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer,
detailed the way forward proposed by the Government, anticipating the establishment of
a Joint Committee and a free vote on composition:
The gracious Speech confirmed that we will bring forward proposals to continue
the reform of your Lordships’ House. In doing so, we want to ensure that there is
a proper opportunity for deliberation and consensus building. That is central to
our approach. We set out clearly during the course of the election the
Government’s objective: an upper Chamber that is effective, legitimate and more
representative, without challenging the primacy of the Commons. That involves a
debate about the purpose and powers of the upper Chamber and not just about
its composition.
The Government will bring forward measures to address four key elements in the
reforms. These include a committee of both Houses to identify and set out the
key conventions of this House and a reasonable time limit for Bills to proceed
through the Second Chamber. That limit—60 sitting days—would not be less
than the period which this House has taken to consider Bills in the past. It would
not prevent this House amending or deleting parts of legislation in accordance
with its current powers and conventions.
The key elements also include removal of the remaining hereditary Peers and a
free vote on the composition of the House. That vote must be properly informed.
We hope that there will be agreement in both Houses.
The Government are keen for there to be a proper process of deliberation and
debate on all of these elements. Once that deliberation is complete, a Bill will be
brought forward to give effect to the conclusions reached.
(HL Hansard, 23rd May 2005, cols 243–244)
In response, the Conservative home affairs spokesperson, Baroness Anelay of St Johns,
warned against any reduction in the powers of the House of Lords:
We say that this House should not accept any dictation from the other place as to
its procedures, tolerate no guillotine and accept no diminution in its powers. We
believe that a cross-party approach is the right one, so we will co-operate fully
with the Joint Committee. But the remit of that committee must be far wider than
that currently proposed by the Government.
25
Any Joint Committee must be able to range over the functions and operations of
both Houses and their joint relationship
(HL Hansard, 23rd May 2005, col 247)
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson on constitutional affairs, Lord Goodhart, stressed
that his party would not countenance “half-baked” reforms:
We have made it clear that we will not support half-baked changes to the
composition of your Lordships’ House, such as the removal of the remaining
hereditary Peers, except as part of the introduction of an elected majority of
members of this House and we stand by that commitment.
Meanwhile, the Government want to curb still further the powers of your
Lordships’ House. We are to have a Joint Committee to consider the conventions
governing the relationship between the two Houses. Will that committee accept
that the Salisbury Convention is long out of date and should be scrapped? It will
not. I believe that the committee’s real purpose in the Government’s eyes is to
give its blessing to the report of the Labour Back Bencher’s committee chaired by
the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in the previous Parliament. The report
contained some acceptable proposals but also several that are unacceptable…
(HL Hansard, 23rd May 2005, col 253)
29th September 2005
In a speech to the Labour Party Conference, the Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, reiterated his commitment to making
progress on House of Lords reform.
Lord Falconer told delegates:
We must, for example, press on with Lords reform. We are on track for what we
promised. A debate on purpose. A free vote on composition. A bill in the next
session of parliament. We will get there. We will remove the hereditaries. And
we can make progress on wider reform. My goodness, we can’t wait another 100
years.
(‘Reconnecting people and politics’, speech by Lord Falconer to the Labour Party
Conference, 29th September 2005)
12th December 2005
The Constitution Unit, part of University College London’s School of Public Policy,
released research findings showing “surprising levels of support from MPs and the public
for the Lords to vote down government proposals” (Constitution Unit press release,
‘Lords should block government bills, say public and MPs’). The Constitution Unit was
undertaking a research project into the Lords’ behaviour since 1999 (see
www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/).
26
Senior Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit, Dr Meg Russell, provided the following
analysis of the research results:
Despite the unelected basis of the Lords these results make clear that it enjoys
support from MPs and the general public to block policies that are perceived as
unpopular. Far from clashing with the Commons it may even inflict government
defeats with the silent approval of Labour MPs. Whilst government may wish to
tame the powers of the Lords, these results suggest that voters are really quite
happy with things as they are.
(Constitution Unit press release, ‘Lords should block government bills, say public
and MPs’, 12th December 2005)
9th January 2006
The Government stated that discussions were ongoing regarding the establishment of a
Joint Committee to consider the powers of the House of Lords.
In response to a written question, the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional
Affairs, Harriet Harman, stated:
The Government are continuing to seek the co-operation of other parties in
setting up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and codify the powers of
the House of Lords. The Government hope to be able to proceed with the
establishment of the Joint Committee as soon as possible.
The Government will also proceed on its other free-standing manifesto
commitments on Lords reform—to limit to 60 days the time the House of Lords
deal with a Bill, to abolish the remaining hereditary Peers and to allow a free vote
on the composition of the House of Lords.
(HC Hansard, 9th January 2006, col 240W)
31st January 2006
A debate was held in Westminster Hall on the subject of House of Lords reform
(HC Hansard, cols 23–45WH).
15th February 2006
The Herald reported that the Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Amos, was
personally of the view that the House of Lords should be smaller with a majority elected
element.
Baroness Amos was quoted as saying:
“Personally, I think there should be a smaller House of Lords, a majority elected
element, not representing constituencies.”
27
She said she wanted to see “a better regional balance” of Peers representing
Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
“I would retain some kind of cross-bench element as a way of ensuring that—if
through the party system you weren’t able to encourage more women and ethnic
minorities—you still had a process that enabled you to do that, and also enabled
you to bring in some particular skills and knowledge and experience that you
wanted, whether it be in science or arts or education,” she said.
The Lords’ chief argued that Peers should receive a salary instead of just
expenses.
“Which brings me back to the point about having a smaller second chamber of
about 300,” she said. “Of the current 700-odd Peers, only about 400 come in on
a fairly regular basis”…
…Baroness Amos argued it was necessary to retain a two-chamber parliament.
“The House of Lords potentially has a very powerful role constitutionally, there
are all kinds of ways it can exercise that role,” she said. “If you look at the select
committee report on assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia, for example. It
seems to me these very big moral questions that at some point, as a country, you
have to address ... These are precisely the areas where a House of Lords has a
lot of expert opinion. There are a lot of very knowledgeable people there.”
(The Herald, ‘Baroness wants to cull 50 per cent of Peers’, 15th February 2006)
26th February 2006
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer,
stated that the Government was keen to try and build a consensus on Lords reform and
he also indicated that the introduction of an elected element in the Second Chamber
could be acceptable.
Giving an interview to the BBC’s Politics Show, Lord Falconer stated:
It’s time to try to move the debate forward. Lords reform is unfinished business.
It’s not at the top of people’s political agenda. But it’s an important thing, and it’s
a thing to try to achieve.
But in order to avoid it dominating one or two parliamentary sessions, we think
the right course is to try to see if a consensus can be built up on how you reform
the Lords. Because a consensus to reform the Lords, is the best, the most
durable, and the most effective way to reform the Lords…
We note that things appear to be changing on the two opposition parties view to
it. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, they say they’re in favour of Lords
reform, so too the Liberal Democrats. So let’s see if we can build a consensus on
both powers and position of the Lords, and on composition…
The interviewer, Jon Sopel, put it to the Lord Chancellor that while there may be a broad
consensus for the creation of a hybrid House of Lords, the Prime Minister had previously
28
been against such a move. Lord Falconer responded:
…the Prime Minister is keen to see if there is a consensus. If a consensus can
be built, then he would support it.
Asked if the Prime Minister would support the possibility of a hybrid Chamber with an
elected element, Lord Falconer said:
Well that is what both other opposition parties want. There’s significant support
for it in my own party. Let’s see what sort of consensus can be built. I don’t know
what the consensus building will produce, but if it produced a result where the
primacy of the House of Commons were clear, and a way forward on composition
was clear, then we would certainly not stand in the way, indeed we would
encourage reform along those lines. But the crucial thing is, let’s see if we can
build a consensus.
As to whether he himself would support the creation of a hybrid Chamber, Lord Falconer
stated:
Yes I would, and I think that we need to see whether or not that represents a
consensus, or there is some other consensus…
…if there is a broad political consensus for change, then we will support it. If that
involves a hybrid House, then that is something that could be acceptable.
(From transcript of Lord Falconer being interviewed on the BBC’s Politics Show,
26th February 2006)
27th February 2006
Following Lord Falconer’s remarks to the BBC on 26th February, the Shadow Leader of
the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, sought to ask a Private Notice Question exploring
the Government’s policy on Lords reform. The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness
Amos, argued that a Private Notice Question was not justified.
In a short exchange, Lord Strathclyde told Peers:
My Lords, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this morning I
notified the Leader of the House that I wanted to ask the following Private Notice
Question:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government if, in view of recent statements to the media
by government Ministers, they will indicate to the House what are their future
plans with regard to policy on the House of Lords”.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this Question had been turned down
on the basis that it was not an urgent matter. Will the Leader of the House say
what, on Saturday afternoon, made the Government brief the BBC and
newspapers on the future of the House of Lords? Will she also say what made
the Lord Chancellor break his engagements on Sunday and urgently go to the
BBC studios to give an interview on the future of your Lordships’ House when it is
not sufficiently urgent to give a statement in this very House this afternoon?
29
I am asking the Leader of the House not to reverse her decision now, although
that would be a perfectly fair thing for her to do, but to consider very carefully
whether she took the right decision and whether she believes that this House
should be told before the media what the Government have in mind on the future
of this House—an issue that is extremely important to every Member of your
Lordships’ House.
(HL Hansard, 27th February 2006, col 11)
Baroness Amos argued that in her view a Private Notice Question was not justified:
My Lords, government policy on House of Lords reform was set out in a
manifesto on which this Government won an election last year. I fail to
understand why this has become an urgent matter, as the noble Lord, Lord
Strathclyde, suggests, given Ministers’ recent statements to the media. Indeed, I
stated my personal view of House of Lords reform to the media two weeks ago…
Nothing in the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was, in my
view, of sufficient urgency to justify a reply this afternoon. I understand and
totally appreciate that this is an issue of interest to the House, but it is not of
sufficient urgency to justify a Private Notice Question, in my view.
(HL Hansard, 27th February 2006, col 11)
27th February 2006
The Power Inquiry, chaired by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, published its report,
Power to the people: The report of Power—An independent inquiry into Britain’s
democracy.
The Power Inquiry, established and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, was set up in 2004 to explore how political
participation and involvement could be increased and deepened in Britain. The report
included the following recommendation on House of Lords reform:
70 per cent of the members of the House of Lords should be elected by a
‘responsive electoral system’ (see 12 below)—and not on a closed party list
system—for three parliamentary terms. To ensure that this part of the legislature
is not comprised of career politicians with no experience outside politics,
candidates should be at least 40 years of age.
(From executive summary and recommendations, pp 21–22)
1st March 2006
The Constitution Unit, part of University College London’s School of Public Policy,
published a report suggesting that the House of Lords was becoming increasingly
confident and assertive in its behaviour, The House of Lords in 2005: A more
representative and more assertive Chamber? (Dr Meg Russell and Maria Sciara).
30
A press release setting out the report’s key findings pointed to the following
developments as evidence of the Lords’ increasing confidence:
In 2005 we saw:
•
The biggest row between Lords and Commons since the start of the 20th
century, over the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
•
The biggest government defeats since 1997, and some of the largest
rebellions amongst Labour Peers.
•
Labour becoming the largest party in the Chamber for the first time,
boosting the Lords’ representativeness and sense of its own legitimacy.
•
The renunciation by the Liberal Democrats of the ‘Salisbury convention’
whereby the Lords should not block government manifesto bills.
•
Polling evidence amongst the public and MPs showing that a majority
support the Lords to block unpopular measures.
(Constitution Unit press release, ‘House of Lords is strengthening, suggests
Constitution Unit’, 1st March 2006)
5th March 2006
The Leader of the House of Commons, Geoff Hoon, warned against the creation of rival
Chambers and stressed the importance of resolving the debate about powers.
In an article for the Independent on Sunday, Geoff Hoon stated:
…This has led to suggestions for a hybrid House where some members are
appointed and some are elected. The track record of such hybrid arrangements
is not encouraging. Members of the Scottish Parliament, where some are elected
from constituencies and some come from a party list, complain about the difficulty
of reconciling their different status. This was also the motivation behind the
amendments to the Government of Wales Bill to prevent those defeated in
constituency elections from being elected on a party list.
Having elected members in the Second Chamber, many of them probably
politicians who were unable to get seats in the House of Commons, would
change the entire nature of the legislature. We only have to look to other nations,
such as Italy, to see there are real dangers in having two rival elected Chambers
at permanent loggerheads…
The debate on powers could be resolved by making established conventions,
such as the Salisbury Convention, legally binding to ensure the primacy of the
Commons. This would have to be done by statute, and would be a complex
process, but would assist in encouraging support in the Commons for changing
the composition of the Lords. One thing is quite clear from the perspective of
31
Members of the House of Commons. We must clarify and circumscribe the
powers of the Second Chamber before deciding its composition if we are to
achieve consensus among elected parliamentarians.
(Independent on Sunday, ‘Lords reform is long overdue—But elections could
make us like Italy’, 5th March 2006)
21st March 2006
It was announced that the Metropolitan Police were to conduct an inquiry into allegations
that offences had been committed under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.
This development followed allegations that honours had been awarded improperly.
25th April 2006
A motion proposing the creation of a Joint Committee to consider codification of the key
conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament was agreed in the
Lords by 179 votes to 95 (HL Hansard, cols 74–94).
The motion proposed:
That, accepting the primacy of the House of Commons, it is expedient that a Joint
Committee of the Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the practicality
of codifying the key conventions on the relationship between the two Houses of
Parliament which affect the consideration of legislation, in particular:
(A)
the Salisbury-Addison convention that the Lords does not vote against
measures included in the governing party’s manifesto;
(B)
conventions on secondary legislation;
(C)
the convention that Government business in the Lords should be
considered in reasonable time;
(D)
conventions governing the exchange of amendments to legislation
between the two Houses;
and that the Committee should report by Friday 21 July 2006.
(HL Hansard, 25th April 2006, cols 74–75)
In the debate that followed on the motion, Lord Cope of Berkeley, Opposition Chief Whip,
argued that there was no case for restricting the current powers of the House of Lords:
My Lords, as this proposal was in the Labour manifesto, there have been
discussions on the terms of reference between the parties and we accept the
terms set out in the resolution. However, the Members of the Joint Committee
will have an important and tricky task. Apparently, some people see this
operation as one to limit the powers of this House. They read codification of the
conventions as some kind of code for restricting the powers. I point out that the
terms of reference do not ask the new committee to consider or to propose any
32
revision or modification of the conventions, only to consider the practicality of
codifying the existing conventions. Some may, of course, be best left to
conventions, which is a method that has served the British constitution well over
many years. We see no case for restricting the powers of the present House.
The argument about the powers of either House of the legislature is not that they
are too strong, but they are too weak relative to the Executive, the Government.
(HL Hansard, 25th April 2006, col 75)
The Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, Lord McNally, expressed his
initial reluctance for the Liberal Democrats to participate in the Joint Committee but
explained that he would now support it due to a parallel initiative by the Lord Chancellor
that would look at reform and composition:
It is known, certainly on my Benches, that when this committee was first
proposed I was very reluctant for the Liberal Democrats to participate in it; not
least because I thought it simply gave momentum to what was at that stage one
of those famous Downing Street briefings—that the Prime Minister was
determined to clip the wings of the House of Lords. It came not long after the
Labour Party group report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, already referred to, which
exposed one of the problems we face—that that group seemed to set as its
objective how best and how smoothly to get government business through the
House of Lords…
We must split off our task as parliamentarians putting in place a Parliament that
can keep an over-powerful executive in place and the desire of some on those
Benches to make life easy for the government Chief Whip of the day. I have
been willing to go along with this group because parallel with it is an initiative by
the Lord Chancellor that will look at reform and composition, and I do not think
that you can separate composition and powers in the way the Government are
trying to do. I do think that the useful analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of
Berkeley, has already established that the group will have some difficult tasks to
perform. The House of Lords, by one of those paradoxes of history, now has a
higher reputation than perhaps at any time in the recent past, partly because it
uses its limited powers prudently but constructively, and I am determined that it
should still retain the right to say no. Unless it retains that right, we are on our
way to a unicameral Parliament, with a debating Chamber at this end, and with
that would come all threats of the elective dictatorship which Lord Hailsham
warned us about 30 years ago.
(HL Hansard, 25th April 2006, cols 78–79)
Responding to the debate, the Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Amos, outlined
the Government’s view on how the reform process would be taken forward, confirming
that the Lord Chancellor had begun a consultation process with the political parties on
the issue of composition:
It might help if I say something about the process that we envisage, which is no
different from the process envisaged last year when the Government set this out
in their manifesto. The Government committed to establishing a Joint Committee
looking at the conventions, and this is the Joint Committee that we are discussing
now. The Government made it clear then that they were committed to a further
free vote on composition. We would like that free vote to be informed by
whatever comes out of the Joint Committee. That was always the intention, and
it remains so. A number of speakers in the House this afternoon have indicated
33
that they think the issue of composition comes before a discussion of what this
House is here for. I do not agree with that; it is important that we are clear about
what we are here for and to do, which will then inform the issue of composition.
Clearly there are two different views around the House.
Since the Government’s commitment to the Joint Committee and to the free vote
on composition, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has begun a
process of consultation with the parties, looking at the issue of composition to see
if there is consensus which could inform that free vote. Those discussions are at
an early stage.
(HL Hansard, 25th April 2006, cols 91–92)
5th May 2006
In a Cabinet reshuffle, Downing Street announced that the newly installed Leader of the
House of Commons, Jack Straw, would take on lead responsibility for Lords reform.
Previously, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, under Lord Falconer, had held lead
responsibility.
10th May 2006
The House of Commons debated the motion proposing the creation of a Joint Committee
to consider codification of the key conventions on the relationship between the two
Houses (HC Hansard, cols 436–474). The Motion was agreed by 416 votes to 20
(Deferred division, HC Hansard, 17th May 2006, col 1070).
22nd May 2006
After debate, the House of Lords agreed to a motion setting out the membership and
powers of the Joint Committee on Conventions by 184 votes to 31 (HL Hansard,
cols 582–595).
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved an amendment to the motion which would have removed
the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, Lord McNally, from the
membership of the Joint Committee, and which served to enable him to express serious
misgivings about the creation of the Joint Committee. Lord Peyton told Peers:
My Lords, this Motion gives me the opportunity to point out briefly that, out of the
179 noble Lords who voted for the Motion on 25 April, five—almost half of those
proposed—are going to be members of the Joint Committee. Of the 95 who
voted against the Motion, none will be given places on the committee. I do not
wish to expand on this; I am just mentioning it as a matter of interest to show the
way in which the wind is blowing.
The second reason why I find this Motion useful is that it presents another
opportunity to express my feeling that the appointment of a Joint Committee to
look into the conventions of this House is out of place and odious. I do not think
that one can be blamed for repeating those sentiments again and again. I fear,
34
and the Government must hope, that the committee’s study of the conventions
will somehow help them on a further step down the road to the reduction of your
Lordships’ House to the status of a laundry. I do not say that a laundry is not
needed to tidy up the legislation which comes before us in such bulk, but the idea
that we should simply wash and tidy up and iron the laundry and then deliver it
again to its source seems unacceptable.
(HL Hansard, 22nd May 2006, cols 582–583)
In response, Lord McNally explained why he had agreed to the establishment of the Joint
Committee, setting out the chain of events which had led to him seeking membership of
the Committee, including the fortunes of an informal committee looking at composition:
When, over six months ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, proposed the
setting-up of this committee, I resisted the Liberal Democrats’ making
nominations. It came shortly after one of those infamous Downing Street
briefings where we were told that the Prime Minister was finally exasperated with
the House of Lords and was going to clip our wings. I said then that we were not
going take part in a wing-clipping exercise, and that we could only look at the
conventions in parallel with issues such as powers and composition.
Two or three months ago, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke
to me and reported a Pauline conversion by the Prime Minister to House of Lords
reform, and that the noble and learned Lord was going to set up a committee to
look for a broad consensus between the major political parties. I reported this to
my colleagues at both ends of the House, and some of them expressed great
scepticism about the Government’s intentions. I, being younger, more idealistic
and perhaps more naive, said that we should trust them at their word. I forcefully
argued that, since those two committees now existed and that the cause of Lords
reform was being championed by no less a person than the noble and learned
Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, it was worth taking the risk to see whether the
prospects for Lords reform existed. So this committee went on the Order Paper.
At four o’clock this afternoon, we would have been having the first meeting of the
Lord Chancellor’s committee—except that, last Thursday, I got a letter from a
private secretary in the Lord Chancellor’s Department telling me that the noble
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been removed from all matters
concerning Lords reform. It said that the new Leader of the House of Commons,
Mr Jack Straw, had decided to stand down the Lord Chancellor’s committee, and
would consult individuals on the wider issue of reform from time to time, as
needed. When I reported this to my colleagues, a number resisted saying “I told
you so”, but they certainly looked as though they were thinking it.
My reason for going on this committee, and the Lord Chancellor’s committee, was
that we can proceed only by looking at a complete package. Mr Straw has since
modified his comments about the Lord Chancellor’s committee, saying that he will
bring it together at a suitable time. But both Houses deserve to see the wider
package. Given our experience so far, the Prime Minister seems to take an
interest in Lords reform only when he is getting his feet singed with problems
elsewhere. He takes the matter away from the noble and learned Lord the Lord
Chancellor, who had done a great deal of preparatory work, and hands it to Mr
Jack Straw, whose record on constitutional reform does not put him in the ranks
of radical reformers. That starts this process off on a very bad foot. When you
add the fact that we are in the twilight of the Blair years—so this whole process
35
might be interrupted by a change in head of government—I share some of the
scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
However, we are where we are. The wonderful briefings that we get tell us that
my good and old friend the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, might chair the
committee. Again, with the greatest of charity, his record as a constitutional
reformer has not set radicals’ hearts beating, but perhaps Pauline conversions
are spreading like bird flu through the Government. Mr Straw and the noble Lord,
Lord Cunningham, might take this issue and move it forward—who knows? That
is why my name is on the list.
(HL Hansard, 22nd May 2006, cols 584–585)
The Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, expressed dismay that
responsibility for Lords reform had passed from the Lord Chancellor to the Leader of the
House of Commons:
My second concern is about who is, overall, in control. Since 1997, this role has
been carried out by the Lord Chancellor—the noble and learned Lords, Lord
Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton. At the latest reshuffle, only a few
weeks ago, that role was given to the leader of another place, Mr Jack Straw. It
is the first time that I can think of where responsibility for the future of this House
resides not here but in another place. I cannot believe that that is the best way to
create confidence in this process.
(HL Hansard, 22nd May 2006, col 586)
The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Amos, rejected claims that the Joint
Committee was a device for curbing the powers of the House of Lords:
The idea that any Members who have been proposed for the committee either in
this House or in another place will meet to discuss curbing the powers of the
House of Lords is patently nonsensical.
(HL Hansard, 22nd May 2006, col 587)
Baroness Amos also responded to the concern, raised by several Peers, that the Joint
Committee, in being asked to report by 21st July, would not have enough time to carry
out its work. She stated that the Joint Committee could ask both Houses to agree to a
revised timetable (cols 587–588).
25th May 2006
The Joint Committee on Conventions published its First Special Report (HL 189, 2005–
06) in which it announced that Lord Cunningham of Felling had been elected chairman,
invited the two Houses to extend the deadline for producing a final report until the end of
the Session and set out its method of proceeding. The report also posed a number of
questions under the headings: the Salisbury-Addison convention; secondary legislation;
reasonable time; and exchange of amendments (“ping pong”).
36
5th June 2006
The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Amos, rejected claims that the Government
was intent on reducing the powers of the House of Lords.
Speaking during starred questions, Baroness Amos stated:
My Lords, I think that we are all agreed that this House does an excellent job in
scrutinising legislation. It is not always a comfortable place for government, but
the work that this House does is very important indeed. On the issue of losing
business, I am not aware of any business having been lost. What we have seen
is the House of Lords asserting itself more; we have had more ping-pong, for
example. There is no proposal to clip the wings of this House as the noble Lord
stated. The Government have said that they would like to look at the operation of
our parliamentary democracy and in particular at ways of making this House
more effective through the continuation of the reform process. I remind the noble
Lord that this Prime Minister is the first to have improved the accountability of
government through, for example, his appearance twice a year to the chairs in
the Liaison Committee.
(HL Hansard, 5th June 2006, col 1034)
8th June 2006
The Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, stated that, alongside the work of the
Joint Committee, he was also consulting the political parties, as well as the
crossbenchers and the Bishops, on Lords reform.
The Lobby briefing reported Jack Straw as saying that:
…he was also consulting the parties, plus the crossbench Peers and bishops,
formally and informally. He was quite clear that the Prime Minister would not
have asked him to undertake the task if he did not believe there was a possibility
of dealing with it once and for all. Mr Straw said that he thought most people
considered the current position of the House of Lords to be unsustainable. They
wanted a Second Chamber which continued the very important work of revising
legislation and holding Ministers to account, but one which respected the primacy
of the Commons. They wanted to see the issue sorted as well. He was aiming to
achieve that and, with luck, there would be a consensus. If the issue was not
settled in the next year or so, then the parties’ patience with it would probably be
exhausted for five or ten years.
(10 Downing Street, ‘Afternoon press briefing from 8th June 2006’)
20th June 2006
The House of Lords agreed to extend the Joint Committee’s deadline to report from
21st July to the end of the Session (HL Hansard, col 633).
37
20th June 2006
Responding to a debate in Westminster Hall, the Deputy Leader of the House of
Commons, Nigel Griffiths, updated MPs on the reform process, confirming that,
alongside the work of the Joint Committee, the Leader of the House was pursuing
informal meetings with representatives of the political parties.
Nigel Griffiths stated:
As has been pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been
asked to take the lead responsibility for developing the Government’s proposals
to take forward Lords reform. That is recognition of the importance that the
Government attach to the views of this House on the future of our Parliament.
We have always made it clear that the future of the House of Lords cannot be
considered in isolation. The Joint Committee on Conventions has been set up
and has begun its work. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, along with
colleagues from other parties, gave evidence to the Committee last week.
Representatives of the Conservative party, I understand, are giving evidence right
now. My right hon. Friend is also holding an informal meeting this week with
representatives of other parties, the Cross-Bench Peers in the Lords and the
bishops. That follows the initiative started by the Lord Chancellor.
The Government have always made it clear that they would prefer to proceed
with Lords reform by consensus. There are many different views on the optimum
outcome, so it is likely that we will have to ask people to compromise on some of
the details if we are to get an agreed way forward in this House and the other
House. That cannot be at the expense of compromising our fundamental
principles, namely the primacy of this House. One of the frustrating things about
the difficulty in delivering Lords reform is that there is a large degree of
agreement about the fundamentals, yet we cannot find a clear way forward.
(HC Hansard, 20th June 2006, col 384WH)
4th July 2006
The House of Commons agreed to extend the Joint Committee’s deadline to report from
21st July to the end of the Session (HC Hansard, col 788).
4th July 2006
It was announced at the start of business in the House of Lords that the first elected Lord
Speaker was to be Baroness Hayman.
In the election of the Lord Speaker, which was held on 28th June, a total of 581 valid
votes, including 122 postal votes, were cast. There was 1 spoilt ballot paper. A total of
702 Members of the House were eligible to vote. After 7 transfers of votes, the voting for
the final 2 candidates was: Baroness Hayman 263 – Lord Grenfell 236.
38
11th July 2006
The Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, delivered a speech to the Hansard
Society in which he stressed his commitment to achieving consensus on how a reformed
House of Lords might look, suggesting that it should be possible to build consensus
around the idea of a 50 per cent elected, 50 per cent appointed House of Lords.
Jack Straw argued that:
…Reform of the Second Chamber is inextricably linked to the debate about the
reform of Parliament. Much has been achieved here in recent years—the
election last week of Baroness Hayman as its first Speaker is evidence of that—
but there is much to be done. I will be working with colleagues on all sides of
both Houses over the coming months as part of an intensive effort to reach a
consensus on how a future Upper Chamber may look. I think a consensus is
achievable and I believe this: if we do not seize the opportunity before us now, I
fear that reform will be placed on the backburner for decades to come. My sense
is that we should be able to build consensus around the idea of a House which is
split 50% elected and 50% appointed, phased in over a long period, perhaps as
long as 12 or 15 years. Crucially the shift must be one which leads to a House
which does not threaten the primacy of the Commons, but which is more
representative of the society we live in today.
The Joint Committee on Conventions is now meeting. This is due to report by
early November. I hope that the Government will then be able to make public its
proposals for reform as a whole by the turn of the year.
Maintaining the primacy of the Commons is key. But subject to this, there is no
reason why the Lords should not be able to increase its relevance and its
effectiveness.
(‘The Future for Parliament’, speech by Jack Straw to the Hansard Society,
11th July 2006)
24th October 2006
The Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, delivered the Constitution Unit’s
annual lecture at University College London. He noted that the forthcoming report of the
Joint Committee on Conventions would inform a White Paper on Lords reform. Following
the publication of the White Paper, there would then be a free vote on composition.
During the lecture, Jack Straw reiterated his commitment to Lords reform and argued
that, “a final settlement on its composition and powers is critical”. He declared that the
White Paper would be driven by five principles and surmised that a consensus was most
likely to be found in a hybrid House:
First, a reformed Lords must not be a rival to the Commons. The primacy of the
Commons is one of the bedrocks of our democracy. It is often claimed that
introducing any form of election into the composition of the Lords would inevitably
threaten the primacy of the Commons. But the international experience suggests
that whether a chamber is appointed or elected is not necessarily an indicator of
how much power it wields.
39
Second, a reformed Lords must not be a replica of the Commons. The role of the
Lords is to revise and to scrutinise – to act as a second opinion. It does this very
effectively. If it were to replicate what the Commons does, it would not only
threaten its position as holding primacy, but it would also remove an effective part
of the Parliamentary process.
Third, a reformed Lords must be more representative of the people it serves.
This means finding ways of increasing the number of women in the House, and
the number of people from minority ethnic groups. The idea of the House of
Lords being led by a black woman would have been extremely unlikely 20 years
ago, but there is much more to do to ensure it better reflects the make-up of
today’s United Kingdom. That also means a House which is more representative
of the regions, and less focussed on the south-east.
Fourth, is the principle of balance. No single party in a reformed Second
Chamber should be allowed to command an overall majority.
Fifth is the need for a range of voices to be heard in the Lords. And that means a
proportion of members who are not drawn from political parties, but who are
independently appointed by virtue of their expertise and experience. Many of
those crossbenchers currently in the Lords make a valuable contribution and add
to the chamber’s reputation for high quality debate and scrutiny of legislation. We
should not lose that element in a reformed Lords.
Beyond these principles, there are of course many issues to be resolved over the
next few weeks and months.
But broadly speaking, my best guess is that a consensus is most likely to be
found in a balanced, hybrid House, with the change phased in over several
Parliaments.
(Jack Straw, annual lecture to the Constitution Unit, UCL, 24th October 2006)
3rd November 2006
The Joint Committee on Conventions published its report, Conventions of the UK
Parliament (HL 265, 2005–06). The Joint Committee stated that if proposals were
brought forward to alter the composition of the Lords, then the conventions between the
Houses would have to be re-assessed. In brief, the Committee’s report:
•
accepted the primacy of the Commons;
•
argued that the Salisbury-Addison Convention had changed since 1945,
and particularly since 1999;
•
warned against trying to define “reasonable” in the context of the
convention that the Lords consider Government business in “reasonable”
time;
•
stated that ping-pong was not a convention, but rather “a framework for
political negotiation”;
40
•
declared that although the Lords should not frequently reject statutory
instruments, in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate to do so;
•
ruled out legislation, or any other form of codification, which would turn
conventions into rules.
The report’s full summary stated:
We were asked to accept the primacy of the Commons, and we do. But we
detect a good deal of shading around what it means in the context of legislation,
and what role it leaves for the House of Lords. No-one challenges the right of the
Lords to consider Bills, including acting as “first House”, and to consider Statutory
Instruments where the parent Act so provides. It is common ground that the
Lords is a revising chamber, where government measures can be scrutinised and
amendments proposed. But there is a range of views on what should be the
proper role of the Lords in the legislative process.
The background to this inquiry is the continuing debate on reform of the House of
Lords. Our conclusions, however, apply only to present circumstances. If the
Lords acquired an electoral mandate, then in our view their role as the revising
chamber, and their relationship with the Commons, would inevitably be called into
question, codified or not. Should any firm proposals come forward to change the
composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would
have to be examined again. What could or should be done about this is outside
our remit.
We are persuaded that the Salisbury-Addison Convention has changed since
1945, and particularly since 1999. This Convention now differs from the original
Salisbury-Addison Convention in two important respects. It applies to a
manifesto Bill introduced in the House of Lords as well as one introduced in the
House of Commons. And it is now recognised by the whole House – not just the
Labour and Conservative frontbenches who originally formulated it. In our view
the Salisbury-Addison Convention has evolved sufficiently to require a new name
which should also help to clarify its changed nature. We recommend that, in
future, the Convention be described as the Government Bill Convention.
In addition the evidence points to the emergence in recent years of a practice that
the House of Lords will usually give a Second Reading to any government Bill,
whether based on the manifesto or not. We offer no definition of situations in
which an attempt to defeat a Bill at Second Reading might be appropriate, save
that they would include free votes.
There undoubtedly is a convention that the Lords consider government business
in reasonable time. But there is no conventional definition of “reasonable”, and
we do not recommend that one be invented. It would be possible for a new
symbol to appear on the Lords order paper, to indicate a Bill which has spent
more than a certain period in the House; we suggest 80 sitting days, or roughly
half an average Session. There is scope for better planning of the parliamentary
year as a whole, possibly involving greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny and
carry-over. If the Government can even out the workload in both Houses
throughout the Session, this should reduce time problems on individual Bills.
“Ping-pong” is not a convention, but a framework for political negotiation. It would
be facilitated if the existing convention, that reasonable notice be given of
41
consideration of amendments from the other House, were more rigorously
observed.
The House of Lords should not regularly reject statutory instruments, but in
exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for it to do so. We list situations
in which it is consistent with the Lords’ role as a revising chamber for them to
threaten to defeat an Order. If none of these, nor any other special circumstance,
applies, then opposition parties should not use their numbers in the House of
Lords to defeat an SI simply because they disagree with it.
As for the practicality of codification, we have found the word “codification”
unhelpful. However we offer certain formulations for one or both Houses to adopt
by resolution. Both the debates on such resolutions, and the resolutions
themselves, would improve the shared understanding which the Government
seek.
All recommendations for the formulation or codification of conventions are subject
to the current understanding that conventions as such are flexible and
unenforceable, particularly in the self-regulating environment of the House of
Lords. Nothing in these recommendations would alter the present right of the
House of Lords, in exceptional circumstances, to vote against the Second
Reading or passing of any Bill, or to vote down any Statutory Instrument where
the parent Act so provides.
Resolutions of this character would be of no value without the support of the
frontbenches of the three main parties. In the Lords, the views of the Convenor
of the Crossbench Peers would also be important. Ideally, such resolutions
would be carried unanimously, or with an overwhelming majority, in both Houses.
The formulations are as follows:
In the House of Lords:
A manifesto Bill is accorded a Second Reading;
A manifesto Bill is not subject to ‘wrecking amendments’ which change the
Government’s manifesto intention as proposed in the Bill; and
A manifesto Bill is passed and sent (or returned) to the House of Commons, so
that they have the opportunity, in reasonable time, to consider the Bill or any
amendments the Lords may wish to propose.
The House of Lords considers government business in reasonable time.
Neither House of Parliament regularly rejects statutory instruments, but in
exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for either House to do so.
We do not recommend legislation, or any other form of codification which would
turn conventions into rules, remove flexibility, exclude exceptions and inhibit
evolution in response to political circumstances. And, however the conventions
may be formulated, the spirit in which they are operated will continue to matter at
least as much as any form of words.
42
Finally, the courts have no role in adjudicating on possible breaches of
parliamentary convention.
(Conventions of the UK Parliament, HL 265, 2005–06, 3rd November 2006,
pp 3–5)
15th November 2006
In the Queen’s Speech for the 2006–07 Session, it was announced that: “My
Government will also continue their programme of reform to provide institutions that
better serve a modern democracy. It will work to build a consensus on reform of the
House of Lords and will bring forward proposals” (HL Hansard, col 3).
13th December 2006
The Government published its response to the report of the Joint Committee on
Conventions, Government Response to the Joint Committee on Conventions’ Report of
Session 2005–06: Conventions of the UK Parliament (Cm 6997).
In a written ministerial statement, the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw,
stated that the Government accepted the Joint Committee’s conclusions. He added,
however, that the relationship and conventions identified by the Committee should apply
to any differently composed chamber:
The Government accept the Joint Committee’s analysis of the effect of all the
conventions, and the Committee’s recommendations and conclusions. The
Government believe that further reform should not alter the current role of the
House of Lords as a revising and scrutinising Chamber, or its relationship with the
Commons. The relationship and conventions identified by the Joint Committee
therefore should apply to any differently composed chamber.
(HC Hansard, 13th December 2006, col 91WS)
In the introduction to its response, the Government elaborated:
The complex issue of the relationship between the two Houses sits at the core of
the arrangements through which Parliament holds the Government to account.
The House of Lords has a crucial part to play in the process, through its role as
the revising chamber. But it is clear that in our constitutional arrangements the
House of Commons retains primacy. Only the Commons has the power to grant
or withhold supply, and, linked to this, it is only the Commons whose confidence a
government must maintain in order to remain in office. These arrangements
mean that there is a very different relationship between the Government and the
two Houses of Parliament. They ensure that the party which secures a majority
through a general election has the right to form a government and to carry
through the programme set out in its election manifesto.
The House of Lords must be equipped with the power to perform its role as a
revising chamber effectively, but it must not exercise this power in a way which
undermines the position of the House of Commons. The constitutional backstops
of Commons’ primacy are the Parliament Acts and the rules on supply. However,
43
there are other elements which underline this – those which govern the day to
day relationship between the two Houses. These are the kinds of conventions
that the Committee was asked to investigate.
We accept the Joint Committee’s analysis of the effect of all the conventions, and
the Joint Committee’s recommendations and conclusions. Its report accurately
defines the current relationship between the Lords and the Commons.
(Government Response to the Joint Committee on Conventions’ Report of
Session 2005–06: Conventions of the UK Parliament, Cm 6997, 13th December
2006, p 3)
16th January 2007
The House of Lords debated the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions
(HL Hansard, cols 573–638).
The debate saw a general endorsement of both the Joint Committee’s report and the
Government’s response. Several speakers, however, questioned the Government’s
contention that the relationship and conventions identified by the Joint Committee should
apply to any differently composed chamber. Responding to the debate, the Secretary of
State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, elaborated on this
issue:
Perhaps we may we go to the point of disagreement because there appeared to
be no disagreement about the report, and in approving it we are approving of
paragraph 61. It states that if there is compositional change in the House, the
convention will have to be re-examined. That is plainly right and there is
absolutely no dispute between anyone in the debate that what the Joint
Committee has described is what the conventions are in the current House, and if
the House changes, the description it gives will no longer apply. The
Government have made it clear that they accept that but it is their contention that
a new House of a different composition should behave broadly in the same way
as this House now does.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, rightly said that the House
does well at the moment and performs its role extremely effectively. I agree, but
the question that is posed—one which is not for answer today—is whether it is
possible to have a House that performs the complementary function that this
House does, as defined in the report of my noble friend Lord Cunningham of
Felling, if there was an elected element. There are noble Lords who say that that
is impossible—someone used the words “pie in the sky”—and that once there is
an elected element in the context of the relationship between the Commons and
the Lords, you can never have the relationship that currently exists. That is the
issue. It is not resolved by the Joint Committee. It will have to be resolved when
the debate takes place on the free vote.
(HL Hansard, 16th January 2007, cols 635–636)
44
17th January 2007
The House of Commons debated the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions
(HC Hansard, cols 808–887).
The debate indicated widespread approval for the Joint Committee’s report. As in the
Lords, many speakers questioned whether the current conventions could remain in force
in a reformed Second Chamber with an elected element, and whether they would survive
a significant change in composition.
7th February 2007
The Government published its White Paper, The House of Lords: Reform (Cm 7027).
Statements were made in the House of Commons and the House of Lords (HC Hansard,
cols 843–859; HL Hansard, cols 710–725).
The Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, in the foreword to the White Paper,
set out the policy context and suggested that consensus could be achieved around a
hybrid House of Lords with 50% of members elected and 50% appointed:
However, reform of the House of Lords remains unfinished business. There are
still 92 hereditary Peers sitting in the Lords. But ending this anomaly, in the
Government’s view, does not go far enough to ensure that Britain’s Second
Chamber is fit to meet the demands and expectations of this century. The
legitimacy and authority of the Second Chamber continue to be called into
question.
Significantly, the 2005 manifestos of the three main parties commit them to
further reform of the Lords.
If changes of the magnitude involved are to take place, broad agreement on
some of the key issues and agreement that the changes should be introduced
over a long period of time is, to say the least, highly desirable. The alternative is
likely to be deadlock. Time and time again – in 1909, 1949, 1968 and 2003 –
fundamental reform of the House of Lords has failed because, for some, the best
became the enemy of the good. Deadlock would be easy to achieve; the prize of
progress means moving forward gradually and by consensus.
To reach next stage of reform, our 2005 General election manifesto committed us
to holding a free vote in Parliament on the composition of a reformed House of
Lords.
This reflects the fact that, despite parties’ official positions on reform, there are
strongly held and conflicting views on the future of the Lords. These will no doubt
be reflected in the way in which the free votes are cast – including by Ministers.
The paper therefore offers no prediction on the outcome of the votes: the future
composition of the House is a matter for Parliament to decide.
However, to assist debate, and help progress, it is both practical and useful to
offer an indication of a model around which consensus on the issue might be
achieved. My own view is that a House where 50% of members are elected and
50% appointed is that point. This is also the model that the White Paper uses to
45
illustrate how a hybrid House might work. The final outcome might well be
different from this. Free votes are exactly that – free. But even then, the tangible
proposals in this paper on transitional arrangements, on electoral systems and on
a range of other matters should have focussed debate and, hopefully, enabled
Parliament to come to a clear view – something which was absent when a free
vote on this issue was held in 2003.
I believe that the approach outlined in this White Paper represents the best
opportunity to make progress. It is, in my view, a unique opportunity to move
forward with reform to make the House of Lords a more effective, legitimate and
representative chamber, fully playing its part in a 21st century democracy.
(The House of Lords: Reform, Cm 7027, 7th February 2007, p 5)
A press release summarised the White Paper’s key points as follows:
•
A hybrid House with at least 20% non party political appointments;
•
Direct elections through a partially open list system;
•
A lengthy transition period for existing members, with no current Peers
being forced to leave; members of a reformed House should serve long
non-renewable terms;
•
A staggered process for any elected element, with one third of it being
introduced at each election; these would coincide with elections to the
European Parliament and have the same constituency base;
•
House of Commons primacy must remain in any reform process. The
Lords should not rival or replicate the House of Commons and, normally,
no party after reform should have a majority of either the party-political
members of the House or of the House as a whole;
•
Future membership should reflect as far as possible the diversity of the
UK’s people and viewpoints, and representation of the Church of England
in the House should continue;
•
A proposal to establish a new independent Statutory Appointments
Commission, reporting directly to Parliament, and no future Prime
Ministerial appointments;
•
Size of the reformed House should be 540 members;
•
The link between the peerage and a seat in Parliament will be broken
altogether;
•
The right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords on the
basis of their ancestry brought to an end.
(Office of the Leader of the House of Commons press release, ‘Straw announces
White Paper on House of Lords reform’, 7th February 2007)
In terms of the response to the White Paper, in the House of Lords, the Shadow Leader
of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, criticised the Government’s proposals,
46
describing them as “a mudge of compromise” and “a mush of PR and political
correctness that is simply appointment by another name” (HL Hansard, cols 714 and
715). He concluded:
Our talks over these past few months were constructive, and I thank the noble
and learned Lord and Mr Straw for the way in which they conducted them. In
particular, I thank them for giving me advance notice of the White Paper and this
Statement. I cannot fault them on their courtesy and behaviour in that respect. I,
the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and the
right reverend Prelates took part in a constructive spirit. It would have been
wrong not to have sought consensus. It was right to attempt it. There is no
disgrace in failure, but if the noble and learned Lord assumes assent for this
paper, failure it will be.
We are now at the fag-end of a prime ministership I understand the haste to
search for a legacy, but this House is old, with centuries of work done and,
please, centuries more to come. Some think that it does not do so bad a job, and
cry out for reform not here, but in another place. How disappointing that the
White Paper is silent on that.
If the Government try to force this mish-mash through, then our ways will part.
These confused plans are not real reform, and risk bringing division and perhaps
discredit on us all. The wise thing would be to pause for mature reflection in both
Houses and to gather the wisdom of Parliament, treating this plan as the Green
Paper that it really is and giving us all time to consider what is and is not in it in
far more depth and in a less febrile climate than today’s.
(HL Hansard, 7th February 2007, col 716)
The Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, Lord McNally, welcomed the
White Paper, describing it for his party as “a step towards redeeming a 100 year-old
commitment” (HL Hansard, col 717). He stated that the status quo was not sustainable
and hoped that some progress could be made:
It is often said that the post-1998 House of Lords has done a good job, and I
agree. Research by University College London confirms that it has, but there is
no doubt that the House is tainted by patronage and that the status quo is not an
option. Mr Straw is right to say that what will come forth in the end will be a
compromise and that the White Paper gives us an opportunity to move forward. I
shall not go into the details of the White Paper because I hope that all Members
will use it as their Recess reading. I shall echo a great Liberal statesman from
the 20th century in saying that this White Paper is not the end of the debate on
Lords reform; it is not even the beginning of the end, but it could be the end of the
beginning.
As Mr Straw recognises, a wrecking process would be relatively easy. I only
have to look round the House to see some pretty adept wreckers. That kind of
unholy alliance would be totally against what is required and against public
opinion.
(HL Hansard, 7th February 2007, col 717)
In the House of Commons, much reaction centred on the proposal in the White Paper
that an alternative vote procedure should be employed for the forthcoming free votes on
composition. The Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, argued that it was an
47
attempt to avoid the situation which occurred in the 2003 votes (“the farce—the train
wreck—that was produced on the last occasion” – col 851) whereby MPs rejected all
seven options for reform.
19th February 2007
The Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, told MPs that in the light of
widespread concerns, he had decided not to proceed with the alternative vote procedure
for the free votes on composition, but instead, to revert for all votes to the traditional
division system (HC Hansard, col 21). The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, repeated Jack Straw’s statement in the Lords. He
confirmed that as the alternative vote procedure was not now being pursued in the
Commons, it would not be proposed for the Lords. The usual channels would discuss
how to conduct the votes on the options, using the normal division lobby method of
voting (HL Hansard, col 901).
6th and 7th March 2007
The House of Commons debated the White Paper and voted on options for composition
(HC Hansard, cols 1389–1488 and cols 1524–1638).
At the end of the debate, the House divided eight times. MPs supported the principle of
a bicameral legislature and two options—an 80% elected House and a 100% elected
House. They also supported a motion stating that the remaining retained places for
Peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be removed.
48
Option
For
Against
Bicameral Parliament
416
163
Fully appointed
196
375
20% elected
80% appointed
Rejected without division
40% elected
60% appointed
Rejected without division
50% elected
50% appointed
155
418
60% elected
40% appointed
178
392
80% elected
20% appointed
305
267
Fully elected
337
224
Amendment: Removal of
Hereditary Peers once
elected members have
taken their places*
241
329
Removal of Hereditary
Peers
391
111
*
The Leader of the House’s motion was: “That this House is of the opinion that the
remaining retained places for Peers whose membership is based on the
hereditary principle should be removed.” The opposition amendment would have
added to the end of the motion: “once elected members have taken their places
in a reformed House of Lords.” The amendment was defeated, and the original
motion carried.
49
For an analysis of the Commons divisions, please see the House of Commons Library
Standard Note, Commons divisions on House of Lords reform: March 2007 (13th March
2007).
Following the Commons votes, Jack Straw stated that he would re-convene the crossparty working group:
I am delighted, both by the results and by the fact that at long last this House has
come to a very clear decision.
The other place will be discussing this issue next week. I think it is fully accepted
on both sides that we are right to take our time to consider the views of the other
place. Meanwhile, I shall make arrangements to recall the cross-party working
group, and at an appropriate moment after discussions in that group I shall of
course make a statement to this House.
(HC Hansard, 7th March 2007, col 1636)
12th and 13th March 2007
The House of Lords debated the White Paper (HL Hansard, cols 451–466, 475–609 and
620–730).
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer,
informed Peers of the Government’s proposed timetable:
At the conclusion of this debate, we will need to consider what has been said in
both Houses of Parliament. We will reconvene the cross-party group, to which
we will present working papers. We will consider a further White Paper. In
accordance with the promise given in paragraph 4.17 of the current White Paper,
we will evaluate, in the light of the debates, the extent to which the various
options that emerge from these debates affect the conventions, and we need to
make proposals for how the preservation of those conventions may be promoted
and achieved. We may decide to publish a further White Paper. We will then
publish a draft Bill.
(HL Hansard, 12th March 2007, col 455)
50
14th March 2007
The House of Lords voted on the options for composition (HL Hansard, cols 741–759).
Peers voted in favour of a fully appointed House and rejected all other options.
Option
Fully appointed
361
142
100
15
94
5
5
20% elected
80% appointed
40% elected
60% appointed
50% elected
50% appointed
60% elected
40% appointed
80% elected
20% appointed
Fully elected
Breakdown by
Affiliation
For
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Crossbenchers
Bishops
Other
Against
121
14
48
43
15
0
1
Rejected without division
Rejected without division
46
6
26
1
11
2
0
45
8
24
1
10
2
0
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Crossbenchers
Bishops
Other
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Crossbenchers
Bishops
Other
114
22
40
38
14
0
0
122
11
60
41
8
0
2
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Crossbenchers
Bishops
Other
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Crossbenchers
Bishops
Other
(Source: Hansard and House of Lords division analysis database)
51
410
148
108
54
91
3
6
393
137
110
53
86
3
4
336
127
105
10
87
3
4
326
136
83
8
93
4
2
14th March 2007
On the same day as the votes on composition in the House of Lords, two private
members’ bills were introduced to the Lords (HL Hansard, cols 740–741).
Lord Avebury’s House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [HL Bill 51] would end the system of
replacing deceased hereditary Peers in a by-election.
Lord Steel of Aikwood’s House of Lords Bill [HL Bill 52] would establish a statutory
appointments commission, restrict membership of the House of Lords by virtue of
hereditary peerage, make provision for permanent leave of absence from the House of
Lords and provide for the expulsion of members of the House of Lords in specified
circumstances.
15th March 2007
At a Lobby briefing, the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, reflected on the
votes in the Lords:
The Leader was asked if he was tempted to abandon any hope of compromise
between both Houses after last night’s votes, and whether the Parliament Act
could be used to force the will of the Commons to prevail. Mr. Straw said it was
“one step at a time”, in the words of the hymn. The Government would take
account of the votes in the House of Lords, pointing out that the total in support of
an elected element was more than he had thought there would be. He had
indicated a desire to reconvene cross-party talks. The Leader said that the
Parliament Act existed and, if the Commons had the will, it operated
automatically, but they were not at that position yet.
(10 Downing Street, ‘Afternoon press briefing from 15th March 2007’)
29th March 2007
The Constitution Unit at University College London proposed that the House of Lords
was becoming more assertive (please also see entry for 1st March 2006).
A press release issued by the Constitution Unit claimed:
Events in the past fortnight confirm what many have thought for some time: that
Lords reform in 1999 strengthened the chamber, and that old conventions are
breaking down. Yesterday the Lords defeated a statutory instrument (on casinos)
for only the second time since 1968, and last week rejected a bill (on jury trial) on
second reading. By convention the Lords does neither of these things, and these
events show that the chamber is growing in assertiveness since most hereditaries
departed in 1999.
Research by the Constitution Unit shows that Peers feel more legitimate following
the 1999 reform. A survey of Peers in 2005 found that 78% believed the reform
had made the chamber ‘more legitimate’, and 75% of Labour MPs agreed. The
Lords has now defeated the government over 350 times since its reform.
52
Senior Research Fellow Dr Meg Russell said: “The House of Lords may remain
unelected, but the 1999 reform removed the anachronistic dominance of
hereditary Peers, and crucially made the chamber more politically representative.
With the balance of power held by Liberal Democrats and independents it can be
argued that it more closely reflects public opinion than the House of Commons.
Peers therefore feel justified in challenging government more. The chamber has
been strengthened by the 1999 reform, and if in future it is made elected it will
become far stronger still.” She continued “The Peers still act with some caution
due to their unelected status, but if plans for an elected house go ahead, clashes
like these will become far more common”…
…In a paper to be delivered in two weeks, Meg Russell and Maria Sciara show
that defeats in the Lords are having a significant impact on government policy.
Around four in ten defeats are accepted in whole or in part, and many of these
are on important policy matters. For example Peers have repeatedly blocked
plans to restrict jury trial, blocked the new offence of incitement to religious
hatred, and blocked the forced reorganisation of local government. Meg Russell
said: “All our research points to the fact that the Lords is becoming an important
policy actor. Following the 1999 reform the shape of Westminster politics is
changing, though many haven’t realised it yet”.
(Constitution Unit press release, ‘Evidence mounting of more assertive House of
Lords says Constitution Unit’, 29th March 2007)
20th April 2007
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) confirmed that it had received the Metropolitan
Police Service file of evidence into the so-called ‘cash for honours’ inquiry. The CPS
said that the file would now be reviewed, in accordance with the Code for Crown
Prosecutors, to determine whether any individuals should be charged with any offences.
18th May 2007
The House of Lords gave a Second Reading to Lord Avebury’s private member’s bill, the
House of Lords (Amendment) Bill (HL Hansard, cols 416–442). The Bill, introduced on
14th March 2007, would end the system of replacing deceased hereditary Peers in a byelection.
Responding to the debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of
Justice, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, updated Peers on the Government’s actions
following the free votes earlier in the year:
On where we have to go next, my right honourable friend the Leader of the
House of Commons has indicated that he is discussing the free votes in both
Houses within the Government and will return to Parliament with a statement on
the way forward. He intends to reconvene the cross-party group to assess the
outcome of the debates and the free votes in both Houses, and to continue to
work through the outstanding elements to the reform package. I do not doubt that
in so doing he will talk to his right honourable friend the Chancellor and Prime
Minister-designate—the word of the moment—not least because he is his
53
campaign manager. I imagine that they have a close relationship on this, but I
am not yet party to where that will take us. However, it is already clear that some
discussions are to take place.
(HL Hansard, 18th May 2007, col 441)
27th June 2007
Gordon Brown became Prime Minister.
3rd July 2007
The Government published a wide ranging Green Paper on constitutional reform, The
Governance of Britain (Cm 7170). Statements were heard in both Houses.
The Government’s Green Paper included the following section on Lords reform in which
it stated that it was committed to enacting the will of the House of Commons as
expressed in the recent votes, and that cross-party discussions, still to be led by Jack
Straw in his new role as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, would
continue to such ends:
In 1999 the Government enacted a historic and long overdue reform to
Parliament’s second chamber. The House of Lords Act 1999 provided for the
removal of the sitting and voting rights of the majority of hereditary Peers and
established a mechanism for retaining 90 hereditary Peers through a process of
election (75 elected by hereditary Peers in their party groups and 15 by the whole
House. There are two other hereditary Peers who are the hereditary office
holders, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain).
These reforms were a fundamental step towards a more legitimate and assertive
second chamber which has scrutinised the work of the Government more
effectively, thereby improving British democracy overall.
The Government remains committed to further reform of the House of Lords, to
increase its legitimacy, to make it more representative and ensure that it is
effective in the face of the challenges of this century.
In May 2006 the Government supported the establishment of a Joint Committee
to examine the conventions governing the relationship between the two Houses
of Parliament. The Committee’s report, published in November 2006, provides
clarity on those conventions and is an invaluable baseline for the debate on the
future of the House of Lords.
Over the past year, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, in his
previous role as Leader of the House of Commons, has been chairing cross-party
talks on House of Lords reform. These talks have been successful in building up
a significant degree of consensus on a range of issues, which was reflected in the
White Paper on Lords reform of February 2007 and which provided the
foundations for the free votes held in Parliament on the future composition of the
House of Lords in March 2007.
54
Following the Joint Committee’s report, the Government undertook to look further
at whether the current conventions would ensure the desired relationship in a
differently constituted House, once the free votes had been held.
The Government believes, as many reports on House of Lords reform have
advocated, that the current relationship between the two Houses of Parliament is
the right one, however the second chamber is composed. It accepts, however,
that this relationship may well need to be more explicitly defined than now if the
balance of power between the two chambers is to survive major reform of the
second chamber.
On 7 March 2007 the House of Commons, in its free votes, came out in favour by
a large majority of a wholly elected House of Lords. The Commons also
supported a reformed second chamber based on an 80 per cent elected, 20 per
cent appointed composition but rejected the other hybrid options. The
Government welcomes the results of the free vote and is committed to enacting
the will of the Commons. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are
also committed, in their 2005 manifestos, to a substantially elected House of
Lords.
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor will continue to lead crossparty discussions with a view to bringing forward a comprehensive package to
complete House of Lords reform. The Government will develop reforms for a
substantially or wholly elected second chamber and will explore how the existing
powers of the chamber should apply to the reformed chamber.
As part of this package, the Government is committed to removing the anomaly of
the remaining hereditary Peers. This will be in line with the wishes of the House
of Commons, which voted by a majority of 280 to remove the hereditary Peers in
the free votes in March 2007.
(The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170, 3rd July 2007, pp 41–42)
19th July 2007
Statements were delivered in the House of Commons and the House of Lords setting out
the proposed way forward on Lords reform.
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, reiterated the way
forward set out in The Governance of Britain (Cm 7170) and stated that he would
continue to lead the cross-party talks. Jack Straw told MPs that while the cross-party
group had made progress, outstanding issues remained:
Although there is agreement on some of the areas outlined in the White Paper,
there is still some way to go on some other issues. The group will discuss the
outstanding elements of the reform package, including powers, electoral systems,
financial packages, and the balance and size of the House, including diversity
and gender issues. We will also need to discuss the transition towards a
reformed House in detail, including the position of the existing life Peers and the
need for action to avoid gratuitously cutting Conservative party representation in
the Lords when and if the remaining hereditary Peers are removed.
(HC Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 450)
55
On the issue of the powers of a reformed House, Jack Straw declared:
Let me turn to the powers of a reformed House. The Government have always
said that the balance of powers between the two Houses described by the
excellent and recent Cunningham report should apply to a reformed House.
Those powers are currently underpinned by some statutory provisions, standing
orders and conventions. We undertook to look further at whether the current
conventions were adequate to ensure the desired relationship with a reformed
House, following the free votes.
Over the coming months, we will look at how best to deliver a substantially or
wholly elected second Chamber, based on the principle that this House is the
primary Chamber and that an elected House of Lords should complement the
House of Commons and not be a rival to it. As part of that programme of work it
is vital that the relative powers of a reformed House be made clear. We will
therefore look at ways to enshrine in a constitutional settlement the current
balance of powers and the different roles of the two Houses.
(HC Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 450)
As for the timetable for the reform process, the Secretary of State announced:
The immediate next steps are that I hope to be able to publish a further White
Paper around the turn of the year setting out where we have got to in the crossparty talks—possibly accompanied by draft clauses that would form elements of
the final reform Bill. Our intention through the work of the cross-party group is to
formulate a comprehensive reform package that we would put to the electorate as
a manifesto commitment at the next general election and which hopefully the
other main parties would include in their manifestos. [ Interruption. ] There may of
course be areas on which each party takes a different view—and we have heard
some of them already.
However, there is the potential to reach a degree of cross-party consensus that
will lead to the completion of Lords reform. The free votes in the Commons in
March gave us a clear direction of travel on an issue that has dogged the country
for decades. We now have a chance finally to finish the job.
(HC Hansard, 19th July 2007, cols 450–451)
In terms of the response to the statement, in the House of Lords, the Shadow Leader of
the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, welcomed “the measured way in which the Lord
Chancellor in another place is approaching what is clearly a very difficult task” (col 391)
and agreed that a further White Paper was required. He stressed, however, that he
would accept no diminution in the powers of the House of Lords:
The Minister is right to point out that all this needs a further White Paper, but on
one thing we do not need any White Paper: the proposal that the powers of this
House should be restrained. The purpose of Parliament—indeed, its duty—is to
control the Executive. Two strong, independent Houses working in harness will
do that better than one House, dominated as it is by the Executive, dictating the
powers of the other. The Statement points to a massive recodification of the
Parliament Acts and of the powers and the role of this House. It calls it “vital” to
restrain your Lordships’ House. I profoundly disagree. The Lord Chancellor is
cautious in much of what he proposes, but while accepting the existing
conventions—including the primacy of the other place, which is entrenched in the
56
Parliament Acts and in financial privilege—I urge him to be far braver than he is
about the role and powers of any reformed House of Lords.
Yes, this House has been more assertive since 1999, and government has been
none the worse for it. Some of us might say it has been a lot better. If a reformed
House kept and used its existing powers with even more confidence, things might
get even better still. We welcome the open manner in which the Lord Chancellor
is proceeding, and we will join in his search for consensus, but as to statutorily
containing your Lordships’ procedures or reducing your Lordships’ powers, I can
promise the Minister nothing.
(HL Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 393)
Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Lord Tyler hoped that progress could be made:
The Statement accepts the facts of political life, however. The House of
Commons has voted decisively. The leaderships of all three parties are
committed to reform—even, I think, the Front Benches in this House. The new
Prime Minister and Government have reiterated the former commitments. I hope
the Statement gives the so-called “refuseniks” in both Houses the opportunity to
recognise that from now on our job as parliamentarians is to try constructively to
contribute to the process, rather than to slow it down or filibuster to make it
impossible to make reasonable progress.
(HL Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 393)
Lord Tyler also questioned the Government’s stance on the question of powers:
There has been unanimous rejection of various attempts to clip the wings of the
present House of Lords, which was killed off effectively by the Cunningham
committee and by the unanimous decision of both Houses that the existing
powers and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House should stand as now. The
Statement is ambiguous on that point. On one hand, it says that the Cunningham
committee recommendations are effectively the baseline for our discussions, but
then it talks about reopening the whole question of powers. Will the Minister give
us an explicit assurance that that will not be the case until reform takes place?
(HL Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 394)
A number of speakers expressed concern about the membership of the cross-party
group led by Jack Straw and the limited extent to which it represented all shades of
opinion, particularly the views of backbenchers. For example, Lord Higgins argued:
The other important point is that there is almost a total lack of consensus
between the leadership of the Conservative Party and its members in both
Houses and the leadership of the Labour Party and its members in both Houses.
Therefore, it is tremendously important that the membership of the cross-party
group should include representatives of those who take a different view from that
of the party leaderships. That point was raised on the debate on the conventions,
but the Government have gone ahead without taking it into account. It would be
absurd to take any notice of the cross-party group’s report unless it is
representative.
(HL Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 401)
57
In response, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Hunt
of Kings Heath, stated:
As for the question of representation, I must make it clear that the group consists
of the leadership of the three political parties together with representation from
the Lords spiritual and the Cross Benches. We think that that is the appropriate
method of taking forward these discussions. However, as my right honourable
friend said in his Statement, alongside that we will want to talk and engage with
parliamentarians in both Houses. My noble friend the Leader of the House has
already signalled her intention to ensure that this House has ample opportunity to
do that.
(HL Hansard, 19th July 2007, col 401)
20th July 2007
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that there would be no criminal
proceedings arising out of the so called ‘cash for honours’ investigation.
In a press release, Carmen Dowd, reviewing lawyer and Head of the CPS Special Crime
Division, stated:
Having considered all of the evidence in this case I have decided that there is
insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any
individual for any offence in relation to this matter.
In coming to my decision I considered offences under the Honours (Prevention of
Abuses) Act 1925, offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice and
subsidiary offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000.
(CPS press release, ‘CPS decision: “Cash for Honours” case’, 20th July 2007)
20th July 2007
The House of Lords gave a Second Reading to Lord Steel’s private member’s bill, the
House of Lords Bill (HL Hansard, cols 483–542). The Bill, introduced on 14th March
2007, would establish a statutory appointments commission, restrict membership of the
House of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage, make provision for permanent leave of
absence from the House of Lords and provide for the expulsion of members of the
House of Lords in specified circumstances.
Introducing the Bill, Lord Steel explained that the Bill was “the result of a lot of work by
an all-party group that has been greatly concerned that the years of debate about longterm reform are obscuring the need for what we call effective, immediate reform of your
Lordships’ House” (HL Hansard, col 483). In summary, Lord Steel stated:
In conclusion—I want to be brief and encourage brevity throughout the day—let
me reiterate the main point of the Bill: its proposals provide an opportunity for
consensus on a more limited range of reforms than those that were outlined to us
yesterday. It has the potential to unite a majority in all three parties and in both
58
Houses. Most interesting of all, it has the potential to unite those who seek an
elected House and those who are happy with an appointed House. Yesterday, in
a timely intervention, the Constitution Unit said:
“Whatever the plans for more large scale reform, the government would be well
advised in the meantime to consider proposals such as these, which could move
things on, whilst improving public trust in parliament”.
That is the basic case, and our plan is to listen to the voices in this debate and
reintroduce the Bill, possibly with amendments in the light of comments today,
early in the new Session. It would then be possible for the Government to pick it
up in the other place and for legislation to be in effect next year. In his answer to
questions yesterday, Mr Straw made it clear that he is in a listening mood. We
should take advantage of that. The Bill is not the comprehensive reform that he
seeks; it does not pretend to be.
(HL Hansard, 20th July 2007, col 486)
In response, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Hunt
of Kings Heath, confirmed that the Bill did not contain the comprehensive reform which
the Government sought:
As I said at the beginning, no matter whether it is sensible to take an interim
course or to go for comprehensive reform, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has done a
great service to this House in bringing this Bill before us. Clearly, some technical
matters will need to be discussed as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’
House. I have said that the Government will listen very carefully to the comments
made by noble Lords on the Bill and, indeed, on wider matters of Lords reform,
but I must, in all fairness, say to noble Lords that the Government have set out
the process by which they seek to achieve a White Paper that brings forward
comprehensive proposals in light of the vote in March in the other place for an 80
per cent or 100 per cent elected House. We do wish to engage and listen to all
Members of Parliament on these important matters, but, equally, the prospect of
party agreement, of manifesto pledges and of comprehensive reform is in reach.
It is important that we do everything that we can to achieve that.
(HL Hansard, 20th July 2007, col 539)
During the Second Reading, concerns about the membership of the cross-party group
were again expressed. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath reiterated the purpose of the group
and referred to a letter from the Leader of the House:
All I say is that we have established the group It has been meeting for a number
of months. As a result of its work, we have had the opportunity of the free votes.
The group will continue to meet. The aim is to produce the White Paper, but my
noble friend the Leader of the House made it clear in her letter to all Members of
your Lordships’ House that there will be many opportunities for them to make
their views known.
(HL Hansard, 20th July 2007, col 537)
59
26th July 2007
The Government’s Draft Legislative Programme (Cm 7175) was debated in the House of
Lords. Opening the debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of
Justice, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, stated that:
The Government’s intention is to ensure that the end result of our discussions on
Lords reform, the eventual legislation and the changes that will bring about, will
enhance parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. That is our purpose.
(HL Hansard, 26th July 2007, col 918)
24th September 2007
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, in his speech to the Labour Party Conference,
stated:
And yes: change to the House of Lords—and we will in our manifesto commit to
introduce the principle of elections for the second chamber.
(Gordon Brown, Speech to the Labour Party Conference, 24th September 2007)
9th October 2007
Responding to a written question about legislative reform of the House of Lords, the
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, reiterated the
Government’s position:
I hope to be able to publish a further White Paper around the turn of the year,
with the aim of producing draft clauses that would form elements of the final draft
Bill. My intention through the work of the cross-party working group on Lords
reform is to formulate a comprehensive reform package that we would put to the
electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election.
(HC Hansard, 9th October 2007, col 433W)
23rd October 2007
In an oral evidence session of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Lord Goodlad
asked the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor if he would “envisage the
House of Lords reform Bill being the subject of a referendum?”.
60
Jack Straw responded:
I have not envisaged it, no. Just to add to that, I have certainly envisaged—and
the Prime Minister made this clear in his speech—that any change should be the
subject of a clear manifesto commitment.
(House of Lords Constitution Committee, meeting with Jack Straw MP, Lord
Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, p 41)
25th October 2007
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, delivered a
statement to the House of Commons in which he updated MPs on the Government’s
programme of constitutional renewal. On the subject of reform of the House of Lords, he
stated:
For the sake of completeness, may I tell the House that in respect of reform of the
House of Lords, discussions are proceeding inside the all-party talks? We are
arranging for two meetings of the working group before Christmas.
(HC Hansard, 25th October 2007, col 410)
In the debate that followed the statement, Jack Straw elaborated:
The all-party talks are taking place against the background and in the context of
the clear decisions, made on an all-party basis in this House in early March, in
favour of an 80 per cent. elected or 100 per cent. elected House of Lords and
against all other options. That is the clear decision of this House. In that context,
and given that all three parties support a wholly or mainly elected House of Lords,
I hope that we can reach agreement on the many issues that make up the
dossier.
(HC Hansard, 25th October 2007, col 418)
In the debate following the repetition of the statement in the House of Lords, the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath,
said:
As regards House of Lords reform, in the light of the vote taken by the House of
Commons and the work of the joint group, my right honourable friend the Prime
Minister said at the Labour Party conference that the next Labour Government
manifesto—whenever that is produced—would contain a commitment to the
principle of election. There is much to be discussed between now and then and I
look forward to all noble Lords taking part in those discussions and informing the
work of the joint group
(HL Hansard, 25th October 2007, col 1162)
61
7th November 2007
The House of Commons debated the constitutional elements of the Queen’s Speech.
Pressed on the membership of the cross-party working group on House of Lords reform,
the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, stated:
We are not excluding other Members, of course, but there have to be different
mechanisms. If the all-party talks included a range of opinion on the House of
Lords from within the two main parties, we would never reach agreement even on
the agenda…
It would be impossible to have constructive all-party talks if all shades of opinion
across the spectrum were contained within them; we would never agree about
anything. The truth is that the formal position of all three parties, as expressed in
their manifestos and in the House, is in favour of a wholly or mainly elected
second chamber.
(HC Hansard, 7th November 2007, col 149)
30th November 2007
The House of Lords gave a Second Reading to Lord Steel of Aikwood’s private
member’s bill, the House of Lords Bill [HL Bill 3] (cols 1415–1484). Lord Steel explained
that the Bill was broadly the same as the Bill he had introduced in the previous Session
(see 20th July 2007).
12th December 2007
At a private seminar in the House of Lords, chaired by the Lord Speaker Baroness
Hayman, Dr Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit at University College London presented
findings of a survey of public attitudes to the House of Lords. A press release
highlighted the key findings as follows:
•
More of the public consider it important that the House of Lords act in
accordance with public opinion, that it consider legislation carefully and in
detail, and that the appointments process for peers is trustworthy, than
think it important for the chamber to include elected members.
•
Forced to choose one or two factors that are most important to the
legitimacy of the Lords, inclusion of elected members consistently scores
fifth out of seven amongst the public, below these three factors and also
below inclusion of independent members.
•
Among respondents considering themselves knowledgeable about the
Westminster Parliament the most important factor is the chamber
considering legislation carefully, followed by trust in the appointments
process. Inclusion of elected members ranks six out of seven.
62
•
Asked whether both chambers of parliament are carrying out their policy
role well, more of the public agree this is the case about the Lords than
about the Commons. Amongst those knowledgeable about Parliament,
this difference is more marked.
Commenting on the results, Meg Russell, Senior Research Fellow at the
Constitution Unit said: “Previous polls have shown that a majority of the public
support inclusion of elected members in the House of Lords, but that a majority
also support other factors such as inclusion of independent members and a
culture of careful legislative work. What our survey shows for the first time is that,
faced with a choice, the public prioritises other factors above the inclusion of
elected members. In particular the public appear to favour the cleaning up of the
appointments process rather than inclusion of elected members, following the
‘cash for honours’ controversy.”
(Constitution Unit press notice, ‘Poll shows surprise result on public priorities for
Lords reform—Poll of peers confirms growing confidence of the House of Lords’,
12th December 2007)
18th December 2007
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published Propriety and
Peerages, Second Report of Session 2007–08 (HC 153, 2007–08). This report had
been delayed by the police investigation into the so-called ‘cash for honours’ affair. The
summary of the report highlighted the Committee’s key recommendations:
Our main proposal is for an immediate House of Lords reform measure, clearly
defined in scale and scope. Its primary purpose would be to put the independent
House of Lords Appointments Commission onto a statutory footing, and empower
it to take decisions on the size, balance and composition of the House against
agreed and explicit criteria. A mechanism is also needed for peers to resign from
the House—or, in some circumstances, to be compelled to leave.
Although these proposals ought to be, and some need to be, set out in legislation,
the Government should not wait where it does not have to. The Government
could implement immediately our proposal for new peers to be chosen by the
Appointments Commission rather than by political parties. Under our proposals,
the Commission would choose candidates from “long lists” provided and
published by the parties, with the qualifications of nominees made public. The
methods used by the parties to choose candidates to put on those long lists
would be for the parties themselves to decide, but we suggest that more
transparent arrangements will be more likely to command public confidence.
Lastly, the report argues that the link between the honours system and the award
of seats in the legislature—already significantly weakened—should be broken for
good. Honours and titles should be for past service; a seat in Parliament for
potential future service.
63
Our recommendations build on principles to which the major parties have already
signed up. We hope that the experience of the last two years will provide the
impetus to make them happen, and with a proper urgency.
(Propriety and Peerages, Second Report of Session 2007–08, HC 153, 2007–08,
18th December 2007, pp 3–4)
17th January 2008
The first day of the Committee Stage of Lord Steel of Aikwood’s House of Lords Bill was
held (HL Hansard, cols 1500–1544).
18th February 2008
In response to a written question about the cross-party working group on House of Lords
reform, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, stated that
the Government had no plans to publish the minutes of the meetings:
The cross-party working group on House of Lords reform has met three times
since November 2007. The Government have no plans to publish the minutes of
the Group’s meetings. It is important that the members of the cross-party group
are able to debate the policy options for reform vigorously in order to expose the
advantages and disadvantages of these options and to fully understand their
implications. It is in the public interest that these discussions can take place
away from public scrutiny.
(HC Hansard, 18th February 2008, col 187W)
22nd February 2008
The House of Lords gave a Second Reading to Lord Avebury’s House of Lords
(Amendment) Bill [HL Bill 22] (cols 402–428). Lord Avebury explained the rationale
underpinning the reintroduction of the Bill (see also 18th May 2007):
It might be useful to explain first why this Bill is being reintroduced when the Bill
of my noble friend Lord Steel, of which it is a subset, had its Second Reading and
first day in Committee just over a month ago. My noble friend’s Bill has attracted
a large number of amendments, and it seems unlikely that the time needed to
dispose of them will be available. My Bill is concerned with only one issue: the
by-elections for maintaining the number of hereditary Peers at 92, as provided for
in the Weatherill amendment of 1999. None of the existing hereditary Peers
would be displaced by the Bill, nor would the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great
Chamberlain be affected by it, and the hope was that such a modest and
uncontentious reform would be readily accepted and would attract only a very
short Committee stage. However, if any noble Lord was determined to oppose it,
purely on the grounds that the Weatherill scheme was binding on us until the
second stage of comprehensive reform, they would find that it is not susceptible
to the wide range of amendments that have been tabled to my noble friend’s Bill.
64
I am advised that its strictly limited purposes restrict the scope of amendments to
the situation of the hereditaries, and would not allow for debates on the many
other issues raised in the 200 or so amendments to my noble friend’s Bill.
(HL Hansard, 22nd February 2008, col 402)
However, his assertions regarding the scope of potential amendments were disputed by
subsequent speakers in the debate.
27th February 2008
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay introduced a private member’s bill to the House of
Lords, the House of Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill [HL Bill 38].
12th March 2008
Responding to an oral question from Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, declined to
publish the minutes of the cross-party working group, outlined the work of the group and
announced that a White Paper would be published before the Summer Recess:
Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they will publish the minutes of proceedings of the cross-party FrontBench working group on House of Lords reform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of
Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government have no plans to do so. We want the
group to be able to debate options frankly so that implications can be worked
through fully and consensus reached wherever possible. The group has
discussed possible electoral systems and whether any changes should be made
to the powers of a reformed second Chamber. It is currently looking at issues
around a transitional House, as well as a range of other matters, including
remuneration and disqualification. The outcome of the group’s discussion will be
reflected in a White Paper, which the Government will publish before the Summer
Recess.
(HL Hansard, 12th March 2008, col 1509)
Lord Faulkner, in his supplementary question, responded:
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I am afraid was as
predictable as it was disappointing. Does he not accept that a working group
that, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, consists entirely of
members who believe in a fully or largely elected House of Lords can in no way
reflect the opinion of those of us on these Benches or the Benches opposite who
believe that to move to a wholly elected or largely elected House would destroy
the primacy of the House of Commons and damage the reputation and
effectiveness of this House? Does he not see that to deny us the opportunity to
read the minutes of the proceedings of the cross-party group adds immensely to
65
the suspicion that the Government have now abandoned his predecessors’
undertaking that the next stage of reform would be based on consensus and that
this House would be part of that consensus?
(HL Hansard, 12th March 2008, cols 1509–1510)
Replying to a later question from Lord Tyler, Lord Hunt stressed the importance of
parliamentary scrutiny of the White Paper:
My Lords, it is very important that once the White Paper is produced there should
be—and will be—parliamentary scrutiny. The Government are attracted by the
idea of producing draft clauses and I am sure that, if a joint Select Committee
were to be established, Ministers would be very pleased to co-operate and
appear before it.
(HL Hansard, 12th March 2008, col 1511)
14th March 2008
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay’s House of Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill [HL]
was read for a second time (HL Hansard, cols 1708–1722). In his opening speech, Lord
Oakeshott explained his reasons for introducing the Bill:
This is a short Bill and a short speech. It is so simple; if you sit in the British
Parliament and vote on laws for the British people, you must pay full British taxes
on all your income like the vast majority of your fellow citizens. You must not hide
income or assets offshore behind a veil marked “non-resident” or “non-domiciled”
for tax purposes. If you accept a peerage from the Queen for life, you must not
sign a tax return saying that you do not intend to stay permanently in this country,
as non-doms do…
This simple Bill sets out a simple principle, if you pass laws for British people, you
pay taxes like British people, and a simple system for enforcing it. I ask noble
Lords to support it whether, like me, you believe in a mainly elected House, or
whether, like most noble Lords, you want to reform and build confidence in an
appointed Chamber. Either way, it is high time we cleaned up our act on tax—
pay up or pack up.
(HL Hansard, 14th March 2008, cols 1708 and 1711)
The Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, expressed reservations
about whether the Bill was the right way to tackle this issue:
There is much in the kernel of the Bill that I suspect we could all agree on, but it
needs to be carefully worked out and, I submit, agreed cross-party before we put
the matter into law. It may be that the alleged abuses are felt to be so great that
this cannot wait for government legislation, but I cannot help feeling that this
flawed Bill is not the right way to go about it.
(HL Hansard, 14th March 2008, col 1719)
66
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of
Justice, set out the Government’s position:
On the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, we support the “no
representation without taxation” principle; we support the intentions behind the
Bill, and would not seek to oppose the Bill’s progress in your Lordships’ House
because it is not appropriate for the Government so to do. However, at this
stage, we do not consider the Bill, as it stands, to be an appropriate vehicle to
support.
(HL Hansard, 14th March 2008, col 1720)
25th March 2008
Following a statement on the Government’s programme of constitutional renewal, Lord
Norton of Louth inquired about the papers of the cross-party group on House of Lords
reform:
On Lords reform, the Minister said that the intention of the cross-party group is to
work towards getting the parties to put proposals in their election manifestos. In
other words, it is a party aim. As such, the proceedings of the group are not
covered by any of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. Can we
now see the papers, not least because they seem to have been released to the
Financial Times?
(HL Hansard, 25th March 2008, col 474)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord Hunt of Kings
Heath, responded:
As for Lords reform, the noble Lord will know that there have been some freedom
of information requests, which have not found favour with my department. It
really is important that the participants in the cross-party talks can talk freely in
seeking the agreement that I have already referred to. I urge noble Lords to
ignore leaks and speculation, and to be a little more patient. When the White
Paper is out, we will have many happy hours debating it.
(HL Hansard, 25th March 2008, col 474)
24th April 2008
The first day of the Committee Stage of Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay’s House of
Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill was held (HL Hansard, cols 1725–1756).
67
14th May 2008
The Government published its Draft Legislative Programme 2008/09: Preparing Britain
for the Future (Cm 7372). It contained the following statement about House of Lords
reform:
The Government will be building a longer-term vision for constitutional reform with
a White Paper on the reform of the House of Lords.
(p 25)
16th May 2008
The Government published Propriety and Honours and Propriety and Peerages—
Government response to the Public Administration Committee’s Fourth Report of the
Session 2005–06 and Second Report of the Session 2007–08 (Cm 7374).
In response to the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation that “the next
stage of Lords reform should not wait for a consensus on elections”, the Government
stated:
The Government believes that there is no advantage in bringing forward an
interim Bill when a comprehensive package of reform is being worked up. Last
year’s White Paper and the outcome of the free votes shows that the cross-party
approach is the best way to make progress. The White Paper we intend to
publish will enable widespread consultation and debate. Following this, the
Government intends to include a comprehensive package on reform in its
manifesto for the next general election. We need consensus to achieve major
constitutional reform.
(p 15)
On the question of the establishment of a statutory Appointments Commission, the
Government stated:
The cross-party group which the Government is chairing is working on the options
for either an 80% or 100% elected House. If the House were to be 100% elected,
there would be no place for an Appointments Commission. The Government
agrees that, if the final outcome of its consultations is an 80% elected House and
therefore that there will continue to be an appointed element in the House of
Lords, then any Appointments Commission should be statutory. The cross-party
group has discussed the question of the Appointments Commission in some
detail. However, the Government believes that it would be premature to legislate
for an Appointments Commission at this stage when we do not know if one will be
needed for the reformed House, nor what its role and functions in that House
might be.
(p 15)
68
3rd July 2008
The Government published Governance of Britain: One Year On. It included the
following statement on House of Lords reform under the heading ‘Progress’:
The cross-party talks have made good progress. Consensus has been reached
on a number of key areas including:
•
Multi-member constituencies
•
Long, non-renewable terms of office
•
No reduction in current powers of the chamber
•
The Lords’ continuing role as a scrutinising and revising chamber which
holds the Government to account.
Under the heading ‘Next Steps’, it stated:
White Paper to be published before the Summer Recess followed by a period of
consultation.
(Ministry of Justice, Governance of Britain: One Year On, July 2008, p 16)
14th July 2008
The Government published its White Paper, An Elected Second Chamber: Further
reform of the House of Lords (Cm 7438). Statements were made in the House of
Commons and the House of Lords (HC Hansard, cols 21–36; HL Hansard,
cols 987–1003).
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, in the foreword,
outlined the purpose of the White Paper:
Parliament as a whole will not be an effective and credible institution without
further reform of the House of Lords. The proposals and options in this White
Paper are intended to generate discussion and inform debate, rather than
representing a final blueprint for reform. The Government has long held that final
proposals for reform would have to be included in a general election manifesto, to
ensure that the electorate ultimately decide the form and role of the second
chamber.
(An Elected Second Chamber: Further reform of the House of Lords, Cm 7438,
14th July 2009, p 3)
A press release summarised the White Paper’s key points as follows:
•
a 100 or 80 per cent elected chamber;
•
options for direct elections: first-past-the-post, alternative vote, single
transferable vote and a list system;
69
•
the primacy of the House of Commons must remain in any reform process
and the reformed second chamber should not rival or replicate the
Commons;
•
proposals on eligibility and disqualification, including recall ballots for
elected members of the second chamber and similar arrangements for
appointed members;
•
members should normally serve a single non-renewable term of 12 to 15
years;
•
the link between the peerage and a seat in Parliament will be broken
altogether;
•
the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords on the
basis of their ancestry brought to an end;
•
the size of the second chamber should be significantly reduced and
should be smaller than the House of Commons and costs should be
maintained or reduced;
•
individuals appointed on their ability, willingness and commitment to take
part in the full range of the work of the chamber, if there is an appointed
element;
•
new members of a reformed second chamber elected in thirds coinciding
with general elections;
•
if there is an appointed element in a reformed second chamber, there
should continue to be seats reserved for Church of England bishops, with
the number reduced proportionally in a smaller chamber;
•
a transition period when existing members and new members will work
together;
•
Proposals to establish a new independent Statutory Appointments
Commission, if there is an appointed element in the second chamber.
(Ministry of Justice press release, ‘Straw publishes White Paper on Lords reform’,
14th July 2008)
In response to the White Paper, Lord Strathclyde, Shadow Leader of the Opposition in
the House of Lords, noted “it is the third White Paper on this House from the
Government, and there have been more major statements on its role, Members and
powers over the years” but “for all the Lord Chancellor’s ingenuity, the problem has been
neither newly identified nor finally resolved in the White Paper; there is much work to be
done before a Bill could be presented” (HL Hansard, cols 989–991).
He criticised the White Paper, saying:
There has been perhaps a little fudging, which is why this is not really a White
Paper at all. It is a Green Paper. The Government’s mind is unclear on so much
that you have to wonder why they are publishing it in the first place. Even the
name of a reformed House is a mystery. Leaks a few weeks ago suggested that
70
it would be called a senate, but even that seems to be too radical a step for this
Government, and the name disappeared in the final draft. What will the House be
called? The Minister and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will have to
make the Government’s position far clearer in the months ahead.
(HL Hansard, 14th July 2008, col 992)
Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Lord Tyler welcomed the White Paper but
questioned why the Government had not made further progress on the proposals
(HL Hansard, col 993). Focusing on the timetable for reform he concluded by stating:
It is now 15 months since the House of Commons, for which everyone claims
primacy, voted by such large majorities for reform. Surely unnecessary delay
simply plays into the hands of the refusniks or reactionaries.
(HL Hansard, 14th July 2008, col 994)
The Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, Baroness D’Souza, highlighted the feeling
among the Crossbenches that the opinions of the House had been disregarded:
There is a deeply felt concern that some of the measures proposed will have an
undoubtedly deleterious effect on the chief functions of this House and on
legislation more generally. More than 60 independent Cross-Bench Peers have,
for example, endorsed a statement focusing on incremental House of Lords
reform.
I start with the premise on which the White Paper, and the work of the cross-party
group on Lords reform, is based. In no other legislation since I have been in this
House has the overwhelming vote of this Chamber been so entirely disregarded.
The Lords voted on 14 March 2007 for an appointed or predominantly appointed
upper House by a majority of 327 votes, which represents almost 60 per cent of
the votes cast on that day.
(HL Hansard, 14th July 2008, col 995)
In the House of Commons, the Opposition frontbenches welcomed the White Paper and
much of the reaction focussed on the issues of the electoral system for the proposed
reformed second Chamber, the timing of those elections and the terms in office for those
elected. When asked about the timetable for the reform, the Lord Chancellor Jack
Straw, stated:
To suggest that the process will be completed by 2011 is probably pushing it;
however, getting the legislation in by 2011 would be a good target.
(HC Hansard, 14th July 2008, col 27)
16th July 2008
In a letter to the Times, Crossbench peers Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Bledisloe,
Baroness Fritchie, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Lord Low of Dalston, Lord Ramsbotham,
71
Lord Tenby and Lord Williamson of Horton wrote of the White Paper:
[W]e regret that the views of backbenchers in both Houses, from all parties and
none, appear to have been given no weight in the consultative process before
publication this week of the Government White Paper. We also believe that the
White Paper is based on a flawed premise, namely that the only views to be
taken into account are the majority votes taken in the House of Commons in
March 2007 favouring a wholly elected or an 80 per cent elected Upper House.
The votes at that time in the House of Lords are totally discounted. This is not
how major constitutional change is undertaken in this country.
(Times, ‘Backbenchers’ views have been ignored’, 16th July 2008)
21st July 2008
Writing in reply to the letter, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath argued that “the signatories
acknowledge the primacy of the House of Commons, yet seem to be simultaneously
denying that it has any relevance in determining how the Government should frame its
policy proposal” (Times, ‘Lords White Paper’, 21st July 2008).
4th December 2008
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay and Lord Steel of Aikwood reintroduced their private
members’ bills, the House of Lords (Members’ Taxation Status) Bill [HL Bill 5] (see also
14th March 2008 and 24th April 2008) and the House of Lords Bill [HL Bill 4] (see also
30th November 2007 and 17th January 2008).
21st January 2009
The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee published a report
Reponse to White Paper: “An Elected Second Chamber”. The report concentrated on
the mechanisms by which individuals are appointed to the House of Lords and the
Committee recommended amending the powers of the House of Lords Appointments
Commission. The conclusions and recommendations stated:
1.
We believe that change is needed and possible in advance of any
legislation on the future shape of the second chamber. The existing
powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission are not set in
statute; they could therefore be amended without recourse to statute. In
advance of legislation, indeed with immediate effect, the Government
should move to a system where parties supply longlists of nominees to
the Commission, and decisions on membership are made from those lists
by the Commission against tests of both probity and public interest. The
Commission could also be empowered to determine the balance of the
parties in the House. (Paragraph 7)
2.
The introduction of a fully or largely elected second chamber would render
the changes we propose obsolete. But that moment is some years off
even at best. In the meantime, we have proposed changes that should be
72
made with immediate effect to bring fairness and transparency to the
interim arrangements between now and the completion of reform. The
Government acknowledges the problem; we have presented a solution
with cross-party support. (Paragraph 8)
3.
We have consistently argued that the Commission needs to be
independent of government, and it was on this basis that the votes of the
House of Commons in 2007 were secured. The Government’s new
proposal that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be
accountable to the Prime Minister fails to establish that independence,
and is in contradiction to the expressed will of the House of Commons.
(Paragraph 10)
4.
Our principal concern, though, is the short term. We hoped that our
proposals, designed to reassure a jaded public in the wake of a drawn-out
scandal, would be adopted immediately where legislation was not
necessary. We have not encountered any opposition to our proposals for
interim measures; and we see no reason for further delay (Paragraph 11)
(Public Administration Select Committee, Response to White Paper: “An Elected
Second Chamber”, HC 137, 2008–09, 21st January 2009)
23rd January 2009
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay’s private member’s bill, the House of Lords (Members'
Taxation Status) Bill, was read for a second time (HL Hansard, cols 1851–1875). In his
opening speech, Lord Oakeshott explained his reasons for reintroducing the Bill:
We face the gravest economic crisis since the hungry 1930s. Our fellow citizens
deserve moral as well as political leadership from their Parliament, but we are
breaking their trust if we sit in this place, vote on their laws, but keep our treasure
hidden in some tropical tax haven. Britain is fighting an economic war with its
back to the wall. Tax revenues and tax collection will come under terrible strain,
so for Peers to wriggle out of paying tax today is like wriggling out of conscription
in 1940. My Bill is even more timely and urgent now than when I introduced it
with wide-ranging cross-party support in the previous Session.
(HL Hansard, 23rd January 2009, cols 1851–1852)
The purpose of the Bill remained the same:
Remembering the committee stage last year, I point out that the Bill does not
change in any way any Peer’s tax status by one iota or even require him to
disclose it. All that happens is that Peers will be taxed on the basis that they are
fully resident and domiciled in this country for tax purposes, just like the vast
majority of our fellow citizens.
(HL Hansard, 23rd January 2009, col 1852)
73
The Shadow Leader of the House, Lord Strathclyde, criticised the reintroduction of the
Bill:
Last year, the noble Lord brought this self same Bill to the House. It did not find
favour. It was extensively debated. Suggestions were made, even by its critics,
to improve it, but has the noble Lord listened? Has he had any discussions with
anybody? Has he made any changes whatever to this legislation? Perhaps he
has had private discussions with the Government about the Bill. No, he has not.
We have to question why the noble Lord believes that he has the right to bring
before the House the same Bill which failed last year and the year before in
exactly the same way, rather than listening more considerately to those who have
criticised it.
(HL Hansard, 23rd January 2009, col 1868)
Responding for the Government, the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Hunt of
Kings Heath outlined some of the Government’s reservations about the detail of the Bill,
although on the principle, “summed up very simply as no representation without
taxation”, he suggested that the “Government cannot and would not wish to argue with
that” (HL Hansard, col 1870).
26th January 2009
In response to a private notice question tabled by Lord Strathclyde, the Shadow Leader
of the House of Lords, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Leader of the House of Lords,
announced an inquiry into allegations made against Members of the House in the
Sunday Times on 25th January 2009. It had been alleged that certain Members had
been prepared to accept payments in return for amending legislation:
My Lords, a number of allegations were published yesterday in relation to
Members of this House. I am deeply concerned about these allegations, and this
concern is shared across the House and beyond. Since then, I have referred
these allegations to the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests. The chair of the
Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has agreed to expedite the
investigation into these allegations. Indeed, the Committee has already met, and
investigations are under way.
I have separately asked the chairman of the Committee for Privileges, the
Chairman of Committees the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to consider any
issues relating to the rules of the House that arise, especially in connection with
consultancy arrangements, and in connection with sanctions in the event that a
complaint against a Member is upheld.
(HL Hansard, 26th January 2009, col 10)
74
28th January 2009
In evidence given to the House of Lords Constitution Committee the Lord Chancellor,
Jack Straw, reiterated the Government’s position on the timetable for reform:
It is frankly not possible to promote legislation of this controversy and complexity
—leave aside controversy, it is the complexity of it as well—in the last months of
a Parliament. For those who say “Why don’t we go ahead?” that is the answer.
(House of Lords Constitution Committee, Meeting with the Lord Chancellor, oral
evidence, 28th January 2009, pp 6–7)
He went to explain the Government’s stance on private members’ bills:
If I were to be asked why we have been slightly reticent about particular
proposals for private members, the reason comes back to the management of the
legislation because, if we get agreement that they will be confined to very specific
issues, then we could go ahead but, if they turned out to be a Christmas tree on
which people then hung major proposals for reform, then it would unmanageable.
(House of Lords Constitution Committee, Meeting with the Lord Chancellor, oral
evidence, 28th January 2009, pp 6–7)
29th January 2009
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Leader of the House of Lords, made a statement
informing the House that the Metropolitan Police were reviewing the allegations made
against Members in the Sunday Times on 25th January 2009, and would be considering
whether to investigate (HL Hansard, col 346).
11th February 2009
In a statement to the House of Lords, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon informed the House “I
have met with the Metropolitan Police further on this matter and they have now informed
me of their decision not to take their inquiries further” (HL Hansard, col 1120).
27th February 2009
Lord Steel of Aikwood’s private member’s bill, the House of Lords Bill [HL], was read for
a second time in the House of Lords (HL Hansard, cols 431–496). Opening the debate,
Lord Steel outlined his reasons for reintroducing the Bill:
It is intended as a spur to the Government, in the hope that they will take over the
measures and proceed with them. It is a convenient vehicle, which they could
easily take over.
(HL Hansard, 27th February 2009, col 431)
75
Lord Steel explained that the Bill remained the same as the Bill he introduced in the
previous Session (see 30th November 2007 and 20th July 2007) with the exception of
clause 12, which allowed for a reduction in the size of the House.
Both Baroness D’Souza, the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, and Lord McNally, the
Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, welcomed the Bill. Conservative
peer Viscount Astor, however, insisted that the second stage of reform promised in 1999
must be adhered to and affirmed his belief that “the Government will not dishonour
themselves and break with that undertaking given by the former Lord Chancellors, the
noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton”
(HL Hansard, col 455).
The Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathcylde acknowledged the welcome
the Bill had received but insisted that reform must come in the shape of an elected
chamber. He argued that the Bill “provides architecture towards an alternative solution:
an all appointed House” but it does not “address some of the fundamental problems that
we will have to consider in Committee” (HL Hansard, cols 483–484).
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the Government, in noting the similarities between the
Government’s White Paper and the Bill, said that legislating on these issues “would be
inconsistent with the Government’s intent to legislate for fundamental reform”
(HL Hansard, col 491).
9th March 2009
In a House of Commons written answer the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, restated the
timetable for House of Lords Reform:
The Government’s White Paper on Lords reform was published on 14 July 2008
following cross-party talks. Building on the consensus established in the talks,
the Government intend to develop detailed proposals to be put to the electorate
as a manifesto commitment at the next general election. Legislation would then
be possible in the next Parliament.
The White Paper set out three possible models for managing the transition to a
fully reformed Chamber. The timetable for completing the transition to a fully
reformed second Chamber will be very much determined by which of these
models is adopted.
(HC Hansard, 9th March 2009, cols 89–90W)
12th March 2009
The first day of committee stage of Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay’s House of Lords
(Members’ Taxation Status) Bill was held (HL Hansard, cols 1357–1382).
76
19th March 2009
The first day of committee stage of Lord Steel of Aikwood’s House of Lords Bill was held
(HL Hansard, cols 405–440).
27th April 2009
Responding to an oral question from Lord Tyler, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Deputy
Leader of the House of Lords, informed the House that the Government were still
considering the possibility of publishing draft clauses for parliamentary scrutiny in the
light of responses to the White Paper (HL Hansard, col 2).
14th May 2009
The Leader of the House of Lords, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, announced that the
investigation by the Committee for Privileges into the allegations made against Members
of the House in the Sunday Times had concluded and the reports The Powers of the
House of Lords in respect of its Members (HL 87, 2008–09) and The Conduct of Lord
Moonie, Lord Snape, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn (HL 88-I/88-II,
2008–09) were published (HL Hansard, cols 1107–1108).
20th May 2009
In the House of Lords, the recommendations in the reports by the Committee for
Privileges, regarding the sanctions available to the House in respect of Members and the
suspension of Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott, were agreed to without a vote
(HL Hansard, cols 1394–1418).
20th May 2009
In a statement to the House of Commons, the Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet
Harman, announced plans to legislate for a new, independent parliamentary standards
authority, in light of controversy surrounding MPs’ expenses. This would also extend to
the Lords:
It is clearly appropriate that the new body should also take responsibility for such
issues in the Lords, including administering and regulating the systems of peers’
allowances, overseeing the code governing peers’ conduct and the Register of
Lords’ Interest.
(HC Hansard, 20th May 2009, col 506)
She added “it is clear that extensive work will be necessary to ensure the agreement of
the House of Lords to the effective transfer of responsibilities to the new body”
(HC Hansard, col 506).
77
10th June 2009
Statements were delivered in the House of Commons and House of Lords on
constitutional renewal, in further response to the controversy surrounding MPs’
expenses.
In a statement covering proposals for further democratic reform, the Prime Minister
restated the plan that the House of Commons, and subsequently the House of Lords,
would move from self regulation to independent statutory regulation. Furthermore:
Following a meeting of the House Committee of the House of Lords, and at their
request, I have today written to the Senior Salaries Review Body to ask it to
review the system of financial support in the House of Lords, to increase its
accountability, to enhance its transparency and to reduce its cost. For the first
time, there will also be new legislation for new disciplinary sanctions for the
misconduct of peers in the House of Lords.
(HC Hansard, 10th June 2009, cols 796–797)
On the wider issue of House Lords reform, the Prime Minister reiterated the
Government’s position on an 80 or 100 per cent elected House of Lords and said
proposals for the final stage of reform would be published before the summer, including
proposals to resolve the position of the remaining hereditary peers (HC Hansard,
cols 797–798).
Lord Strathclyde, Shadow Leader of the House of Lords, attacked the proposals for
Lords reform as an “afterthought by a Prime Minister in trouble” (HL Hansard, col 645).
In particular, he questioned the Government as to whether the previous commitment on
fundamental reform still stood:
Up until now, at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord
Hunt of Kings Heath, have given a firm commitment that the Government were
opposed to piecemeal reform and that change to this House could only come in
the context of a major Government reform Bill. Does that commitment still stand?
Or does the commitment—that change in composition would come only with
stage 2 reform—stand repudiated this afternoon by this Government?
(HL Hansard, 10th June 2009, col 645)
Lord McNally, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, welcomed the
proposals but pointed out that many of the ideas for reform were readily available in
private members’ bills already before the House and that time was available to “rescue
their reputation for reform” (HL Hansard, cols 645–647).
10th June 2009
In a press release issued in response to the Prime Ministers’ plans for the House of
Lords, the Constitution Unit at University College London said:
•
There is no prospect of major Lords reform or electoral system change
being agreed before 2010.
78
•
But other small reforms are achievable in this Parliament and are
important: changes to Commons to strengthen it vis-à-vis the Executive,
plus measures in the Constitutional Renewal Bill to tidy up the Lords.
•
Lords reform and electoral system change are not only major and difficult,
but fundamentally linked and must be considered together.
•
Lords reform is likely to happen before electoral reform for the Commons,
but it is important that the same electoral system is not used for both
Houses.
Dr Meg Russell, of the Constitution Unit, said:
Small long-awaited changes to the Lords, such as cleaning up appointments and
allowing peers to retire or be removed can also be included now in the
Constitutional Renewal Bill.
(Constitution Unit press notice, ‘Small immediate changes can strengthen Lords
and Commons, while parties debate the big stuff’, 10th June 2009)
17th July 2009
In a report published by the Constitution Unit, Conservative MPs Sir George Young and
Andrew Tyrie argued for a smaller, predominately elected second chamber, elected by
proportional representation and using the same electoral regions used in the European
parliamentary elections. The report, An Elected Second Chamber: A Conservative
Response, also recommended several immediate changes, including the appointment of
peers for fixed terms of three parliaments rather than for life, improving the sanctions
available to the House of Lords to discipline its Members and placing the House of Lords
Appointments Commission on a statutory basis to appoint all peers, not just non-political
peers.
20th July 2009
The Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, presented the Constitutional Renewal and Governance
Bill to the House of Commons (HC Hansard, col 602). The Bill proposed the ending of
by-elections to replace hereditary peers who had died and to disqualify members of the
House of Lords found guilty of a serious crime or who were subject to a bankruptcy
order. The Bill also provided measures for the House of Lords to suspend or expel
members and to allow peers to resign from the House of Lords and disclaim a peerage.
On the publication of the Bill Jack Straw said:
We are committed to ending the hereditary principle, which has no place in a
modern, representative democracy. Together with new powers which will give
the house authorities more options in terms of disciplining peers on the rare
occasions when this is appropriate, this builds on the work we have already done
to create a strengthened, more legitimate second chamber.
(Ministry of Justice press release, ‘House of Lords reforms will remove hereditary
principle’, 20th July 2009)
79
On further reform he added:
There remain outstanding questions, which the Government will seek to answer
in final proposals after the summer, with draft legislation for pre-legislative
scrutiny as soon as possible. The two key issues are the electoral system and
the size of the elected element (80 per cent. or 100 per cent.). The Government
are giving careful and active consideration to resolving these questions in such a
way as to make best use of a transitional period.
(HC Hansard, 20th July 2009, cols 105–106WS)
21st July 2009
In a press release issued by the UCL Constitution Unit, Dr Meg Russell welcomed the
provisions relating to the House of Lords in the Constitutional Renewal and Governance
Bill but argued the reforms could have gone further:
Ideally the bill should also cut prime ministerial patronage by giving the House of
Lords Appointments Commission control over the number of peers appointed
from each party, and greater control over who those peers are. This would
ensure appointments were fair, and the membership of the House properly
balanced. A clause to ensure that peers retiring cannot stand for the House of
Commons for at least five years would stop the Lords being weakened by
becoming a jumping off point for ambitious politicians. Such a clause has been
widely backed over the years by bodies making proposals on Lords reform. Both
these changes, if they are not in the bill already, may be moved by MPs and
peers as it passes through Parliament.
(Constitution Unit press release, ‘Constitutional Reform Bill disappointing but
deserves to be passed’, 21st July 2009)
30th July 2009
The Law Lords delivered their final judgments in the House of Lords, with the new
Supreme Court due to begin operations in October 2009 under the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005.
80
Select Bibliography
Cabinet Office, Modernising Parliament—Reforming the House of Lords (Cm 4183,
January 1999).
Cabinet Office, The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm 5291, November
2001).
Clarke, K, Cook, R, Tyler, P, Wright, A and Young, G, Reforming the House of Lords:
Breaking the Deadlock (February 2005).
Constitution Unit (UCL), The House of Lords in 2005: A more representative and more
assertive Chamber? (March 2006).
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional Reform: The Future of Queen’s
Counsel (CP 08/03, July 2003).
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional Reform: A New Way of Appointing
Judges (CP 10/03, July 2003).
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the
United Kingdom (CP 11/03, July 2003).
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional Reform: Reforming the Office of the
Lord Chancellor (CP 13/03, September 2003).
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional reform: next steps for the House of
Lords (CP 14/03, September 2003).
Department for Constitutional Affairs, Constitutional reform: next steps for the House of
Lords—Summary of responses to consultation (CPR 14/03, April 2004).
House of Commons Library Research Paper 02/002, House of Lords Reform—the 2001
White Paper (January 2002).
House of Commons Library Research Paper 03/85, House of Lords—Developments
since January 2002 (November 2003).
House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/82, House of Lords—Developments
since January 2004 (December 2007).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/SG/2070, Commons divisions on House
of Lords reform (February 2003).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/2916, Secondary Mandate (February
2004).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/2973, House of Lords Reform—recent
developments (February 2005).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/02855, The House of Lords
Appointments Commission (July 2009).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/3999, Lord Speaker (July 2006).
81
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/3895, House of Lords—continuing
debate (January 2007).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/4016, House of Lords: Conventions
(January 2007).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/SG/4279, Commons divisions on House
of Lords Reform: March 2007 (March 2007).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/4255, House of Lords Reform: 2007
White Paper (March 2007).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/4950, Standards of Conduct in the
House of Lords (June 2009).
House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/PC/5135, House of Lords Reform: the
2008 White Paper and recent developments (July 2009).
House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, The Second Chamber:
Continuing the Reform—Fifth Report of Session 2001–02 (HC 494, February 2002).
House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Propriety and Peerages,
Second Report of Session 2007–08 (HC 153, December 2007)
House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Response to White Paper:
An Elected Second Chamber, Session 2008–09 (HC 137, January 2009)
House of Lords Library Note LLN 98/004, Proposals for reform of the composition and
powers of the House of Lords, 1968–1998 (July 1998).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2000/002, Press Reaction to the Report of the Royal
Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords: A House for the Future (February
2000).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2001/009, Press Reaction to the White Paper—The
House of Lords: Completing the Reform (December 2001).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2003/001, Press Reaction to the Joint Committee on
House of Lords Reform—House of Lords Reform: First Report (January 2003).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2004/001, Responses to Proposals for Constitutional
Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom (January 2004).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2006/006, The Salisbury Doctrine (June 2006).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2007/004, Peerage Creations, 1958–2007 (October
2007).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2007/008, The Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of
Lords (November 2007).
House of Lords Library Note LLN 2007/009, The Weatherill Amendment (November
2007).
82
House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill [HL], Constitutional
Reform Bill [HL] (HL 125, July 2004).
House of Lords Select Committee on the Speakership of the House, The Speakership of
the House of Lords—Session 2002–03 (HL 199, November 2003).
Joint Committee on Conventions, First Special Report—Session 2005–06 (HL 189,
HC 1151, May 2006).
Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the UK Parliament—First Report of
Session 2005–06 (HL 265, HC 1212, November 2006).
Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, House of Lords Reform: First Report—
Session 2002–03 (HL 17, HC 171, December 2002).
Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, House of Lords Reform: Second Report—
Session 2002–03 (HL 97, HC 668, May 2003).
Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, House of Lords Reform: Government reply
to the Committee’s Second Report—Session 2002–03 (HL 155, HC 1027, July 2003).
Labour Peers’ Working Group, Reform of the Powers, Procedures and Conventions of
the House of Lords (July 2004).
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal, Government Response to the
Joint Committee on Conventions’ Report of Session 2005–06: Conventions of the UK
Parliament (Cm 6997, December 2006).
Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal, The House of Lords: Reform
(Cm 7027, February 2007).
Leader of the House of Commons, The Governance of Britain—The Government’s Draft
Legislative Programme (Cm 7175, July 2007).
Leader of the House of Commons, Draft Legislative Programme 2008/09: Preparing
Britain for the Future (Cm 7372, May 2008).
McLean, I, Spirling, A, Russell, M, ‘None of the above: The UK House of Commons votes
on reforming the House of Lords’, in Political Quarterly (July 2003) vol 74(3),
pp 298–310.
Ministry of Justice, An Elected Second Chamber: Further reform of the House of Lords
(Cm 7438, July 2009)
Ministry of Justice, Governance of Britain: One Year On (July 2008).
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, The Governance of Britain (Cm 7170,
July 2007).
Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Propriety and Honours and Propriety
and Peerages—Government response to the Public Administration Committee’s Fourth
Report of the Session 2005–06 and Second Report of the Session 2007–08 (Cm 7374,
May 2008).
83
Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future
(Cm 4534, January 2000).
84